Re: [VOTE] March 2025 PR of the Month

+1 for 47320 - Avi On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 10:57 PM Briana Okyere wrote: > Hey All, > > It’s once again time to vote for the PR of the Month! > > With the help of the `get_important_pr_candidates` script in dev/stats, > we've identified the following candidates: > > PR #47320: Disable ORM acces

[VOTE] March 2025 PR of the Month

Hey All, It’s once again time to vote for the PR of the Month! With the help of the `get_important_pr_candidates` script in dev/stats, we've identified the following candidates: PR #47320: Disable ORM access from Tasks, DAG processing and Triggers < https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/47320 <

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] airflow-core is there (finally!)

Nice follow up ! Thanks to Pavan, we now have a very nice tooling to set up the Airflow multi-distribution project with PyCharm/IntelliJ. With a single command uv run setup_idea.py you will have .idea/airflow.iml .idea/modules.xml generated for you with all the src and test files configured for y

Re: Simple auth manager as default auth manager

Great job Vincent! On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 3:18 PM Beck, Vincent wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I just merged https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/47691 which sets > SimpleAuthManager as the default auth manager in Airflow. If you pull the > latest main branch, Airflow will no longer use the FAB au

Re: [DISCUSS] confusing alert re SimpleAuthManager

I do not think integrating KeyCloak with SAM is a great idea. Having a separate auth manager specific to KeyCloak is, on the other side, a good idea. We should keep SAM simple as it is. I also do not think making it secure require a lot of work so I do not think it is worth having a development

Re: [DISCUSS] The `uv` as the only supported dev tool

+1 for uv. Quick question: We will still make the branches for constraints as we used to, correct? - Avi On Sat, Mar 22, 2025 at 7:24 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote: > Also one more important point - if we drop `pip` support - we will be able > to rely on `uv.lock` for constraint generation. Currently

Re: [LAZY CONSENSUS] Use `uv` as the only supported tooling for Airflow development

Also: The lazy consensus will be reached if no objections are raised in 72 HRs: 1pm CET, 23 March, 2025 https://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?iso=20250327T13 On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 10:53 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote: > Hello here, > > *TL;DR; Following the > discussion https://lists.apache.org

[LAZY CONSENSUS] Use `uv` as the only supported tooling for Airflow development

Hello here, *TL;DR; Following the discussion https://lists.apache.org/thread/88yj3qxqdmc4ony7k8nvp292m28df31c I am calling for a lazy consensus on using only `uv` for local development of Airlfow. * This adds a bit of reliance on