+1 on dropping pip support and have simplified dependency management with
uv.
I agree that managing both is complicated and the quick start docs to
navigate either uv or pip is not the easiest to follow through. I strongly
believe the setup will be orders of magnitude easier to follow along with
j
I'm okay with it. I find the simplicity of uv sync quite nice actually, and I'm
using it a lot now with the separate python projects. I see the concerns but
the mitigations you mention are reasonable and I think pip or others might
catch up by the time it's ever a problem. So I'm +1 overall.
Ch
Well.. Actually Pierre is quite right. While we have not intended Simple
Auth Manager for production it **could** be used.
However we would have to carefully think what to do with default passwords
etc. Currently a lot of warnings in CodeQL were about "writing sensitive
information to logs" - and
Giving users a warning sounds good.
I agree with Pierre, too. How about defining the rules set to be secure by
design? Or just following up on a pattern without discovering something
new? Could you please elaborate on Jarek?
*TLDR*
It may be a slight implementation detail and just a thought, but w
I also would like to start another thread regarding decision making in our
projects. We had some discussions about decision making in our project.
As an ASF project we are supposed to make important decisions on the
devlist. Full stop. "If it did not happen at the devlist, it did not
happen" is so
Hello here,
Following the "airflow-core" move I would like to ask what others think
about dropping `pip` as a way to set-up your local dev environment and
leaving only `uv`.
*Context: *
The `uv` tool from https://astral.sh/ is built in ruff and the way they
approached python dev environments is
Amazing work!
On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 7:50 PM Pavankumar Gopidesu
wrote:
> Great work Jarek :)
>
> Pavan
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 5:42 PM Buğra Öztürk
> wrote:
>
> > Amazing news and effort! Thanks Jarek!
> >
> > On Fri, 21 Mar 2025, 16:18 Kaxil Naik, wrote:
> >
> > > Cool
> > >
> > > On Fr
Great work Jarek :)
Pavan
On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 5:42 PM Buğra Öztürk
wrote:
> Amazing news and effort! Thanks Jarek!
>
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2025, 16:18 Kaxil Naik, wrote:
>
> > Cool
> >
> > On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 at 20:46, Aritra Basu
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Culmination of a great bit of effort Jarek
Amazing news and effort! Thanks Jarek!
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025, 16:18 Kaxil Naik, wrote:
> Cool
>
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 at 20:46, Aritra Basu
> wrote:
>
> > Culmination of a great bit of effort Jarek! Great job!! 👏
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Aritra Basu
> >
> > On Fri, 21 Mar 2025, 7:42 pm Vincent Bec
Is it really wrong to use the SimpleAuthManager in production ? To my
knowledge it lacks a lot of features such as user management and the
permission model is really simplistic, but maybe some installations don’t
need the fancy Auth stuff ?
Instead of being a scary warning that could be just an in
This alert can be definitely improved. I do think we should have it and we
should not remove it. If you have some proposals, please feel free to create a
PR, I'll be happy to review. Mentioning the other auth managers as alternatives
is, I think, a great idea.
On 2025/03/21 07:20:26 Amogh Desai
Awesome work everyone!! I like the subject title...Final Beta!! __
-- Rajesh
On 2025-03-21, 3:23 AM, "Amogh Desai" mailto:amoghdesai@gmail.com>> wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click
links or open attachments unless you can confirm the
12 matches
Mail list logo
