Re: [ACCELERATED VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on October 04, 2025

+1 binding On Sat, Oct 4, 2025 at 2:28 PM Jens Scheffler wrote: > +1 (binding) - Checked SVN, Check in Docker, Reproducible package build, > Licenses, Signatures > > Did an acelerated test with EdgeExecutor and new FAB package and > executed the integration test DAG - no errors. > > On 04.10.25

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on September 25, 2025

-1 (binding) to standard provider +1 (binding) to the others On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 10:54 AM Elad Kalif wrote: > need 1 more binding vote > > On Sat, Sep 27, 2025 at 7:08 PM Elad Kalif wrote: > > > standard provider will be excluded from this wave > > > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 1:59 AM Kaxil

Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal for AIP-76 (Asset Partitions) Implementation

aling with? > > Thanks > > On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 8:39 AM Constance Martineau < > consta...@astronomer.io> > wrote: > > > Hi Hussein, > > > > Thanks for creating this. @Daniel Standish < > daniel.stand...@astronomer.io> > > , @Tzu-ping

[DISCUSS] Proposal for AIP-76 (Asset Partitions) Implementation

Hi all, I’m not sure if the Astronomer team has already started work on implementing *AIP-76*, but I’ve prepared a proposal for how we could approach the implementation. The proposal covers: - Extending the asset/event model to support partitions - A normalized schema for asset eve

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 3.0.6 from 3.0.6rc2 & Task SDK 1.0.6 from 1.0.6rc2

+1 binding, checked signatures and checksums On Wednesday, August 27, 2025, Ash Berlin-Taylor wrote: > +1 binding > > > On 27 Aug 2025, at 10:04, Ephraim Anierobi > wrote: > > > > +1 binding: Checked reproducibility, licences, signatures and checksum > for > > both sdk and core > > > > On Tue,

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 3.0.6 from 3.0.6rc1 & Task SDK 1.0.6 from 1.0.6rc1

+1 binding, checked licenses and signatures On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 4:54 PM Ephraim Anierobi wrote: > +1 binding. Checked reproducibility, licenses and signatures, including svn > checks in airflow-core. However, I was not able to create tarball for > task-sdk. The command is not in breeze. How'

Re: [ACCELERATED VOTE] Release Airflow 3.0.5 from 3.0.5rc3 & Task SDK 1.0.5 from 1.0.5rc3

+1 (binding) On Tuesday, August 19, 2025, Pavankumar Gopidesu wrote: > +1 non-binding. > > Executed a few example dags all LGTM. > > Pavan > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 1:40 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor wrote: > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > On 19 Aug 2025, at 04:08, Wei Lee wrote: > > > > > > +1 (non-bind

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 3.0.3 from 3.0.3rc6 & Task SDK 1.0.3 from 1.0.3rc6

+1 binding On Sunday, July 13, 2025, Ash Berlin-Taylor wrote: > +1 binding 🤞🏻 > > -ash > > > On 12 Jul 2025, at 19:45, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > > > > +1 (binding) - both Airflow-core/task-sdk: Checked: > > > > * SVN > > * Reproducibility > > * licences > > * signatures > > * checksums > > > > I ru

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on May 08, 2025

+1 binding On Fri, May 9, 2025 at 8:02 AM Amogh Desai wrote: > +1 non binding. > > This time my changes were around CI fixes, those are indeed present and > it looks good. > > Thanks & Regards, > Amogh Desai > > > On Fri, May 9, 2025 at 3:04 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote: > > > +1 binding. Checked repr

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 3.0.0 from 3.0.0rc4 & Task SDK 1.0.0 from 1.0.0rc4

+1 (binding) Checked signatures, checksums and licences. 🎉 On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 10:43 AM Ash Berlin-Taylor wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Lets go! > > > On 22 Apr 2025, at 09:21, Rahul Vats wrote: > > > > +1 (non-binding). > > > > Verified all AIPs and regression tests: > > > > - Running examp

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on February 04, 2025

+1 binding On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 4:36 PM Shahar Epstein wrote: > +1 non-binding > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 12:04 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote: > > > Hey all, > > > > I have just cut the new wave Airflow Providers packages. This email is > > calling a vote on the release, > > which will last for 72 ho

Re: [DISCUSS] Drop email integration from Airflow Core

little sense to have a global notification address. > > For those kind of deployments it's no issue because they are not using > > it, for other, smaller deployments that do use it - I can argue that the > > change is very low impact as it's very easy to fix, but we can

Re: [DISCUSS] Drop email integration from Airflow Core

e though (seems separating provider while > keeping the parameters of BaseOperator would require some safe defaults). > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 10:51 PM Hussein Awala wrote: > > > Hello everyone! > > > > We had an implicit consensus about removing the email/SMTP integration

[DISCUSS] Drop email integration from Airflow Core

Hello everyone! We had an implicit consensus about removing the email/SMTP integration from Airflow Core and replacing it with the SMTP provider and SmtpNotifier. This change will simplify Airflow's core, improve maintainability, and provide a more consistent experience with other providers. Now i

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on January 26, 2025

+1 (binding) - checked license, signature and source code. On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 4:50 PM Jens Scheffler wrote: > +1 (binding) - Checked SVN, Check in Docker, Reproducible package build, > Licenses, Signatures > > Also used breeze and started the new Celery 3.10.0 RC2 in Airflow 2.10.4 > and ex

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on December 22, 2024

+1 (binding) checked signatures, checksums, and licences. On Tue, Dec 24, 2024 at 4:21 PM Pankaj Singh wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Tue, Dec 24, 2024 at 6:31 PM Pavankumar Gopidesu < > gopidesupa...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > +1 non binding. > > > > Regards, > > Pavan Kumar > > > > On Mon, De

Re: [DISCUSS] Avoid Yoda conditions in our code

+1 On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 12:28 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote: > FYI: This is how it will look like when SIM300 is applied: > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/44466 > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 11:23 PM Jens Scheffler > > wrote: > > > This is nto a vote but still +1 :-D > > > > On 28.11.24 22:48,

Re: [DISCUSSION] Remove deprecations from providers prior to Airflow 2.11 release

+1 for removing all deprecations from providers before Airflow 2.11. Unfortunately, we don't have a policy to remove providers' deprecations, as we see in some providers we still maintain deprecated features after more than 4 major releases, this is something we have discussed multiple times in th

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on November 03, 2024

+1 (binding) checked signatures, checksums and licences. On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 8:13 PM Jens Scheffler wrote: > +1 for reproducibility issue. I can also confirm that only minor diff is > in - but not only meta data - I see also code differences in fab > provider. So I am not toally conviced. > >

[VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on October 27, 2024

+1 (binding) checked signatures, checksums and licences. On Wednesday, October 30, 2024, Freddy Demiane wrote: > +1 on google providers package > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 8:05 AM Elad Kalif wrote: > > > amazon and fab providers will be excluded from rc1 > > > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 2:15 PM

[VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on October 10, 2024

+1 (binding) checked signatures, checksums and licences. On Sunday, October 13, 2024, Vishnu Chilukoori wrote: > +1 Non binding > > -- > Regards, > Vishnu C. > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2024, 05:00 Pavankumar Gopidesu > wrote: > > > +1 non binding, tested my changes on a few dag examples, everything lo

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on September 21, 2024

+1 (binding) checked signatures, checksums, licences, and sources. On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 5:46 AM Rahul Vats wrote: > +1(non-binding) for openai. > > Regards, > Rahul Vats > 9953794332 > > > On Tue, 24 Sept 2024 at 07:43, Jed Cunningham > wrote: > > > +1 (binding) > > > > Checked reproducibili

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on August 25, 2024

+1 (binding) checked signatures, checksums, licences, and sources. On Sun, Aug 25, 2024 at 12:25 PM Jarek Potiuk wrote: > +1 (binding) - checked reproducibility, checksums, licences, signatures. > > On Sun, Aug 25, 2024 at 10:08 AM Elad Kalif wrote: > > > Hey all, > > > > I have just cut the ne

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on August 19, 2024

+1 (binding) checked signatures, checksums, licences, and sources. On Wednesday, August 21, 2024, Ash Berlin-Taylor wrote: > +1 binding > > > On 21 Aug 2024, at 05:44, Rahul Vats wrote: > > > > +1 non-binding. Verified below providers with our example DAGS > > > > 1. https://pypi.org/project/

Re: [VOTE] New Provider for Core operators/sensor

t; > ...) > > > so in that spirit is essential. > > > > > > just to clarify PMC voting -1 is considered veto but the rule is > applied > > to > > > code change, I am not sure what it means for naming > > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/v

Re: [VOTE] New Provider for Core operators/sensor

-1 on common (I explained why in the discuss thread) +1 standard +0 builtin -0 primary +1 core -0 base -1 shared (same as common) -1 on essential/s (by definition, essential is a thing that is absolutely necessary, which is not the case here, a lot of users use Airflow without the core operators/se

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.10.0 from 2.10.0rc1

+1 binding On Thursday, August 15, 2024, Scheffler Jens (XC-AS/EAE-ADA-T) wrote: > Upgrade my +1 to binding, was able to add: > -reproducible checks > -SVN checks > -License checks > -Signature checks > -SHA513 checks > > Sent from Outlook for iOS > ___

Re: [DISCUSS] New provider Common.time

+1 for moving all the core operators, sensors, and triggers to new/existing providers. > New provider Common.time I agree with others who comment on the name. IMHO common providers should have abstract (or generic) providers/sensors/triggers used by at least two other providers, which is not the

Re: Need more people engaged in our CI / infrastructure

I can prepare a short presentation for the next dev call (22 Aug) to explain the architecture we tried to implement, why we chose it, and what the blockers are (mainly related to the infrastructure team). Also, I am still interested in completing this work. On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 3:58 AM Kaxil N

Re: [VOTE] AIP-67 - Multi-team deplyment of Airflow Components

+1 binding On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 5:38 PM Oliveira, Niko wrote: > +1 (binding) > > A lot of effort went into this one, great job Jarek. I'm happy to see this > one get across the line because we hear from so many users and customers > who want this feature. It's important to focus on building wh

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on August 03, 2024

+1 (binding) checked signatures, checksums, licences, and sources. On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 5:57 PM Vincent Beck wrote: > +1 non binding. All AWS system tests are running successfully against > apache-airflow-providers-amazon==8.27.0rc2. You can see the results here: > https://aws-mwaa.github.io/#

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on July 28, 2024

+1 (binding) ran a few testing dags for amazon provider On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 2:09 PM Jed Cunningham wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Checked reproducibility, signatures, checksums, licences. Looks good! >

Re: [DISCUSSION] AIP-83 Remove Execution Date Unique Constraint from DAG Run

For info, the same topic was discussed in this thread: https://lists.apache.org/thread/p722zobyj8sv9vtc92pxg99wobr3blfc, thanks for re-raising it again, I will review the AIP soon. On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 9:44 PM Scheffler Jens (XC-AS/EAE-ADA-T) wrote: > I like the voting attitude. Vound my +1 o

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on July 21, 2024

+1 binding On Thursday, July 25, 2024, Kaxil Naik wrote: > +1 binding for Spark > > On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 at 06:46, Elad Kalif wrote: > > > apache beam is removed from this wave due to bug found > > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 1:14 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote: > > > > > +1 (binding) - checked reproduc

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.9.3 from 2.9.3rc1

+1 (binding) On Monday, July 15, 2024, Aritra Basu wrote: > +1 non-binding > Tested my changes and they seem to be working as expected > -- > Regards, > Aritra Basu > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2024, 6:03 PM Kaxil Naik wrote: > > > +1 binding: Checked signs, checksums & licenses > > > > > > > > On Mon,

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on July 12, 2024

+1 (binding) checked licences, checksums, signatures, and sources and tested my changes. All looks good. On Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 6:12 PM Jarek Potiuk wrote: > +1 (binding): checked signatures, checksums, reproducibility, licences. All > looks good. > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 7:26 PM Vincent Bec

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on July 09, 2024

-1 (binding) for Weaviate provider - https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/40670 +1 (binding) for the rest - checked licences, checksums, signatures, and sources. All looks good. On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 10:10 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote: > +1 (binding) - checked all my changes, checked reproducibilit

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on June 22, 2024

+1 (binding): checked signatures, checksums, licences, and sources. All looks good. On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 1:47 PM Pankaj Singh wrote: > + 1 (non-binding) > > My changes look good to me. > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 3:27 PM Wei Lee wrote: > > > + 1 non-binding. Verified my change and tested the

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.9.2 from 2.9.2rc1

+1 (binding) checked signatures, checksums, licences and sources. On Saturday, June 8, 2024, rom sharon wrote: > +1 (non-binding) >

Re: [VOTE] May 2024 PR of the Month

+1 for #39336 On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 8:47 AM Pierre Jeambrun wrote: > Well, the task try_number was an issue for as long as I can remember and we > had a few tries attempting to fix it in the past, it was a pain to work > with. > > I am really glad to see it in a more stable state, good job! >

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on May 26, 2024

+1 (binding) for all providers except cncf.kubernetes. Checked signatures, checksums, licences and sources, and ran testing dags for amazon and cncf.kubernetes providers. On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 2:51 PM Pankaj Singh wrote: > + 1 (non-binding) > > Tested my changes. looks good! > > Thanks > Panka

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on May 12, 2024

+1 (binding): checked the licences, the signatures, the checksums, and ran some testing dags for Amazon provider. On Monday, May 13, 2024, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > +1 (binding): verified reproducibility, signatures, checksums, licences. > > On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 9:34 PM Elad Kalif wrote: > > > H

Re: [VOTE] Proposal for adding Telemetry via Scarf

+1 (binding) On Thursday, May 9, 2024, Pankaj Koti wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Thu, 9 May 2024, 08:17 Wei Lee, wrote: > > > +1 non-binding > > > > Best, > > Wei > > > > > On May 9, 2024, at 10:39 AM, Phani Kumar INVALID> > > wrote: > > > > > > +1 binding, looking forward to add Scarf > > > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.9.1 from 2.9.1rc2

+1 (binding) On Sunday, May 5, 2024, Jed Cunningham wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Checked reproducibility, signatures, checksums, licences. Used it with the > helm chart with a few different configs. >

Re: Refactor Scheduler Timed Events to be Async?

If we don't have many Asyncio tasks running in the event loop, there will not be any benefit from migrating to asynchronous, IMHO it will be anyway rewritten to be asynchronous as a part of AIP-70

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on May 01, 2024

+1 (binding) checked licences, checksums, signatures and sources, and ran some testing dags for cncf.kuberenetes and amazon providers. On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 9:29 AM Wei Lee wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Best, > Wei > > > On May 3, 2024, at 2:53 PM, Pankaj Singh > wrote: > > > > +1 (non-binding

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Airflow Python Client 2.9.0 from 2.9.0rc1

+1 (binding) On Wednesday, May 1, 2024, Kaxil Naik wrote: > +1 binding > > On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 at 05:14, Amogh Desai > wrote: > > > +1 non binding > > > > Installed the RC with breeze and was able to test some basic > > functionalities of the client > > like listing DAGs, getting tasks, creatin

Re: [VOTE] April 2024 PR of the Month

+1 for #38531 On Wednesday, May 1, 2024, Kaxil Naik wrote: > I would vote for Allowing tasks to start execution directly from triggerer > without going to worker (#38674) > > > On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 at 19:38, Briana Okyere > wrote: > > > Just a frien

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on April 16, 2024

+1 (binding) On Thursday, April 18, 2024, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > +1 (binding): checked reproducibility, licences, signatures, checksums - > all look good. > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 12:27 PM Pankaj Singh > wrote: > > > +1 (non-binding) tested my changes. > > > > Thanks > > Pankaj > > > > > > >

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on April 13, 2024

+1 (binding) checked signatures, checksums and licences. On Monday, April 15, 2024, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > +1 (binding) for yandex: checked signatures, licences, checksums, > reproducibility. > > On Sun, Apr 14, 2024 at 2:51 PM Elad Kalif wrote: > > > databricks provider is excluded from RC2 > >

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on April 10, 2024

+1 (binding) checked licences, checksums, signatures and sources, tested my changes and run some testing dags for cncf.kuberenetes and amazon providers. On Friday, April 12, 2024, Rahul Vats wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > Verified running our example DAGS > > Regards, > Rahul Vats > 9953794332 > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Asynchronous SQLAlchemy

hreads or > > processes) > > > > > > > > On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 at 00:45, Daniel Imberman > > > > wrote: > > > > > Yeah do we have concrete examples of places where asyncio would be a > > > non-starter? Are there enough of these exa

Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal for adding Telemetry via Scarf

undling the telemetry library > dependencies. Other than that I don't mind it being e.g. optional provider. > > śr., 3 kwi 2024, 22:42 użytkownik Hussein Awala > napisał: > > > > I'd like to propose, that we start with collecting simple data with > &g

Re: [DISCUSS] Asynchronous SQLAlchemy

pr 8, 2024 at 10:46 PM Daniel Imberman wrote: > Yeah do we have concrete examples of places where asyncio would be a > non-starter? Are there enough of these examples to kill this idea? I really > don't like the idea of needing to maintain both sync and async. > > On Mon, Apr

Re: [DISCUSS] Asynchronous SQLAlchemy

eem promising and I like the general idea of this > >> > > approach. > >> > > > But as Jarek > >> > > > also mentioned on the PR: > >> > > > > >> > > > 1. Not everyone might be on the board to go all async due to &

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New committer: Wei Lee

Congrats Wei, well deserved! On Monday, April 8, 2024, Ash Berlin-Taylor wrote: > The Project Management Committee (PMC) for Apache Airflow has invited Wei > Lee to become a committer and > we are pleased to announce that they have accepted. > > Wei has been contributing for a number of months h

[DISCUSS] Asynchronous SQLAlchemy

The Metadata Database is the brain of Airflow, where all scheduling decisions, cross-communication, synchronization between components, and management via the web server, are made using this database. One option to optimize the DB queries is to merge many into a single query to reduce latency and

Re: [DISCUSS] Consider disabling self-hosted runners for commiter PRs

Although 900 runners seem like a lot, they are shared among the Apache organization's 2.2k repositories, of course only a few of them are active (let's say 50), and some of them use an external CI tool for big jobs (eg: Kafka uses Jenkins, Hudi uses Azure pipelines), but we have other very active r

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.9.0 from 2.9.0rc1

> I am unable to downgrade from version 2.9.0rc1 to 2.8.4 after upgrading. Could you provide more information about the problem? On Thursday, April 4, 2024, Rahul Vats wrote: > -1 (non-binding) > > I am unable to downgrade from version 2.9.0rc1 to 2.8.4 after upgrading. > > Regards, > Rahul Vat

Re: [VOTE] AIP-62 Getting Lineage from Hook Instrumentation

+0.9 (binding) I like the idea of this AIP, but I have not followed the entire implementation of AIP-53 to understand the need for the proposed implementation and discuss it, but I look forward to seeing it in Airflow. On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 1:23 PM Jakub Dardziński wrote: > +1 (non-binding). I

Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal for adding Telemetry via Scarf

ts.apache.org/thread/ptwjf5g87lyl5476krt91bzfrm96pnb1), etc. >> > > > Btw clarifying my own stance on the below; and let me know what you think > @Hussein > Awala : I'd like to propose, that we start with > collecting simple data with limited access: to all the PMC m

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on March 25, 2024

+1 (binding) checked signatures, checksums, licences, and source code. On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 5:31 AM Amogh Desai wrote: > +1 non binding > > Installed airflow from main with fab rc1 and I was able to create a few > test users with various roles, > check their rights on the elements, and run a

Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal for adding Telemetry via Scarf

iginal discussion post - both about opting out and providing data > to all the PMC members and providing visibility via Monthly newsletters. Is > there anything else you propose to discuss that isn’t covered? > > > > On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 at 13:21, Hussein Awala wrote: > > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal for adding Telemetry via Scarf

+1 for the idea in general, but there are two main points to discuss before voting on this: 1. We should provide an option to disable Scarf: As Airflow is not a paid product, we cannot force companies to report their use of this project. Otherwise, some may choose to create their own fork just to

Re: [VOTE] AIP-64: Keep TaskInstance try history

+1 (binding) On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 4:32 PM Josh Fell wrote: > +1 (binding). This will be really nice to have! > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 10:56 AM Utkarsh Sharma > wrote: > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 7:46 PM Brent Bovenzi > > > > > wrote: > > > > > +1 (binding) > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Airflow Helm Chart 1.13.1 based on 1.13.1rc1

+1 (binding) Checked signatures, licences, and checksums, and tested the chart locally with kind; the duplicated labels issue seems to be fixed. On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 6:44 PM Jarek Potiuk wrote: > +1 binding. Verified reproducibility, signatures, licences, checksums. > Installed it locally and

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.8.4 from 2.8.4rc1

+1 (binding) checked licences, checksums, signatures, and source codes, and ran some testing dags. All looks good. On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 7:54 PM Jarek Potiuk wrote: > +1 (binding) - tested / verified all changes I was involved (either as > fixer, bug introducer or both, particularly when both)

Re: [VOTE] Remove experimental API

For me, this is one of the experimental features that we can remove at any time according to our release process. For the users who are using it, I don't think they are using a recent version of Airflow because this API has been deprecated since 2.0.0 and we haven't added any features or fixes to i

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.8.3 from 2.8.3rc1

+1 (binding): checked the licences, the signatures, the checksums, and the source code. I tested with some of my dags. All looks good. On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 1:49 PM Rahul Vats wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Verified running example DAGS. LGTM > > Regards, > Rahul Vats > 9953794332 > > > On Fri,

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on March 04, 2024

+1 (binding): checked the licences, the signatures, the checksums, and the source code, all looks good. On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 5:23 PM Pankaj Singh wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Tested my changes and a few more Dags. > > Thanks > Pankaj > > > On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 11:18 AM Amogh Desai > wrote:

Re: [VOTE] January 2024 PR of the Month

+1 for #37058 On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 9:06 PM Scheffler Jens (XC-AS/EAE-ADA-T) wrote: > Oh I totally missed #36797 - I was eagerly waiting for this and for sure > would like to spend my +1 for this! Great work! > > Sent from Outlook for iOS

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on February 23, 2024

+1 (binding) Check licences, signatures, checksums, and source code. All looks good. On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 10:33 AM Andrey Anshin wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Verify signatures, checksums, files > > > > On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 at 20:40, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > > > Yep. I saw they tested it in > > http

Re: [DISCUSS] Considering trying out uv for our CI workflows

That's impressive! I love this tool, not only for reducing CI time but also for saving the environment. Some of the previous improvements were to further parallelize CI jobs to complete the CI faster, but this tool will help reduce the overall time. Big +1 On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 12:34 AM Jarek P

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.8.2 from 2.8.2rc3

+1 (binding) ran the same checks and tests as the RC2; all look good. On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 8:22 PM Jarek Potiuk wrote: > +1 (binding): installed RC3 and ran a few DAGs. Tested reproducibility, > licences, checksums, signatures. Everything looks good ! > > Side comment: I also found two edge-c

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.8.2 from 2.8.2rc2

+1 (binding) Checked licences, checksums, signatures, and sources, and tested some of my dags. All looks good. On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 7:26 PM Vincent Beck wrote: > +1 non binding. I ran successfully my testing DAGs. > > On 2024/02/23 18:14:21 Elad Kalif wrote: > > +1 (binding) > > checked some

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on February 17, 2024

+1 (binding) On Sunday, February 18, 2024, Elad Kalif wrote: > provider cncf.kubernetes will be excluded from this release > > On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 11:32 AM Pankaj Koti > wrote: > > > -1 (non-binding) for apache-airflow-providers-cncf-kubernetes/8.0.0rc2/ > > < > > https://pypi.org/project/a

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on February 12, 2024

I checked the source code, the licences, the signatures, and the checksums and tested my changes; all look good. -0 (binding) for cncf.kubernetes provider; #37279 is too risky and needs some testing, I will try to find some time to test all the cases

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Airflow Helm Chart 1.12.0 based on 1.12.0rc1

+1 (binding) - checked signatures, checksums, licenses, and code, and tried to upgrade from 1.11.0 and run celery executor; all look good. On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 10:14 PM Jarek Potiuk wrote: > +1 (binding):- checked signatures, checksums, licenses and compared content > of the packages. Unfortun

Re: [DISCUSS] Rename channels on slack

+1 for Jed's suggestion, we can archive the channel once the message is sent. Don't forget to mention #development-first-pr-support (or the new channel name if we want to consolidate the names) for new contributors in the message. On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 8:07 PM Jarek Potiuk wrote: > I see... Hm

Re: [VOTE] "Require conversation resolution" setting in PRs as permanent solution

+1 (binding) On Tuesday, February 6, 2024, Ash Berlin-Taylor wrote: > -1 > > On 6 February 2024 06:38:04 GMT, Bolke de Bruin wrote: > >-1, binding. > > > > > >Sent from my iPhone > > > >> On 5 Feb 2024, at 21:07, Scheffler Jens (XC-AS/EAE-ADA-T) < > jens.scheff...@de.bosch.com.invalid> wrote: >

Re: [VOTE] AIP 61 - Hybrid Executors

+1 (binding) On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 2:43 PM Sumit Maheshwari wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 8:18 PM Bishundeo, Rajeshwar > wrote: > > > +1 (non-binding) > > This will be an awesome feature!! > > > > -- Rajesh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2024-02-02, 12:44 AM, "Mehta, Shubha

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on January 30, 2024

+1 (binding) On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 1:28 PM Ephraim Anierobi wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On 2024/01/30 16:42:07 Elad Kalif wrote: > > Hey all, > > > > I have just cut an ad-hoc release for the microsoft.azure provider > package. > > This email is calling a vote on the release, > > which will last

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Starting experimenting with "Require conversation resolution" setting

+1 for keeping it, it's useful to avoid forgetting old conversations, even if they are sometimes outdated (ex #22253), spending 2 minutes closing them is better than merging the PR without considering some of them. On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 8:11 PM Ferruzzi, Dennis wrote: > So far, my only real do

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on January 26, 2024

+1 (binding) I did the same tests and checks as for the first RC. On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 5:28 PM Jarek Potiuk wrote: > Just a small comment - most of this has already been checked, so if we can > have PMC approvals still today, I should be able to release it tomorrow :) > > On Fri, Jan 26, 2024

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on January 22, 2024

+1 (binding) checked source code, licences, signatures, and checksums and tested my changes; all look good. On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 4:22 PM Aritra Basu wrote: > +1 non-binding > > -- > Regards, > Aritra Basu > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024, 8:02 PM Utkarsh Sharma > wrote: > > > +1 Non-binding. > > > >

Re: [VOTE] January 2024 PR of the Month

+1 for #36537 On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 3:40 PM Andrey Anshin wrote: > My vote goes to #36537. > But I think we should mention PR #22253 as a PR which finally merged - > "keep calm and add changes" > > > On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 at 17:36, Wei Lee wrote: > > > My vote is for #36537. Love this packaging

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.8.1 from 2.8.1rc1

+1 (binding) Checked signatures, checksums, licences and sources, I also ran some testing DAGs; all look good. On Thu 18 Jan 2024 at 06:54, Phani Kumar wrote: > +1 non binding > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 10:30 AM Amogh Desai > wrote: > > > +1 non binding > > > > Installed the RC with helm char

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New PMC member: Andrey Anshin (taragolis)

Congratulations Andrey, very well deserved! On Mon 15 Jan 2024 at 19:35, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > I have the pleasure to announce that The Project Management Committee > (PMC) for Apache Airflow has invited Andrey Anshin (taragolis) to become > Apache > Airflow PMC Member and we are pleased to anno

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on January 07, 2024

+1 (binding) On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 7:14 PM Aritra Basu wrote: > +1 non binding > > -- > Regards, > Aritra Basu > > On Mon, Jan 8, 2024, 11:38 PM Pankaj Singh > wrote: > > > +1 (non binding) > > > > On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 11:19 PM Vincent Beck > wrote: > > > > > +1 non binding. All AWS system

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on December 31, 2023

+1 (binding) On Sun, Dec 31, 2023 at 5:14 PM Jarek Potiuk wrote: > Cool. Now I just need 2 binding +1s :) > > On Sun, Dec 31, 2023 at 5:04 PM utkarsh sharma > wrote: > > > +1(non-binding) tested my changes. > > > > On Sun, Dec 31, 2023 at 6:16 PM Jarek Potiuk wrote: > > > > > Hey all, > > > >

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on December 28, 2023

+1 (binding) I ran all the checks (signatures, licences, checksums, and sources) and tested my changes; all looked good. On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 12:16 PM Phani Kumar wrote: > +1 non binding > > On Sat, 30 Dec 2023, 16:10 Amogh Desai, wrote: > > > +1 non binding for providers apart from weavite

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on December 23, 2023

+1 (binding) I checked the checksums, the signatures, the licences, and the sources and I tested all my changes, all look good. On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 11:56 PM Jarek Potiuk wrote: > Looking to some binding votes - hopefully tomorrow we will be able to > release these :) > > On Sun, Dec 24, 2023

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow Python Client 2.8.0 from 2.8.0rc1

+1 (binding) On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 11:20 PM Jarek Potiuk wrote: > +1 (binding). Tested, licences, sources, checksums. Verified source code by > regenerating the client and comparing the output. Tested > `test_python_client.py` with it. All looks fine. > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 3:36 PM Wei Le

Re: [DISCUSS] "Require conversation resolution" in our PRs before merge?

The proposed rule isn't a bad idea, especially for ensuring that maintainers wanting to merge have reviewed all conversions. However, it's essential to permit them to close open conversations if they find the comments have been addressed. Only ping the commenter if uncertain, with a maximum waiting

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.8.0 from 2.8.0rc4

+1 (binding) I checked the checksums, the signatures, the licences and the sources, I also ran some testing dags with Breeze. all looks good. On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 11:17 AM Wei Lee wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Best, > Wei > > > On Dec 18, 2023, at 6:15 PM, Pankaj Koti wrote: > > > > +1 (non-

Re: Making Listeners API non-experimental

+1 On Sun 17 Dec 2023 at 12:24, Scheffler Jens (XC-DX/PJ-PACE-E03) wrote: > +1 (wow my fist binding vote 😃) - so stable I even did not notice it > exists > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards > > Jens Scheffler > > Deterministik open Loop (XC-DX/ETV5) > Robert Bosch GmbH | Hessbruehlstraße

Re: [PROPOSAL] NEED URGENT FEEDBACK! MySQL Badly signed repo breaks Airflow images

Hey Jarek, Thank you for opening this discussion. I have been working since this morning on a solution to this problem in our Airflow Prod image, which is based on the Airflow docker file retrieved from tag 2.6.3, without duplicating the docker file in our repository. I agree that option 1) is mo

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on December 12, 2023

+1 (binding) for daskexecutor, docker and odbc providers On Thu 14 Dec 2023 at 13:37, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > A small reminder. Despite -1s on Google, databricks, i would love to have > some +1 on the remaining ones (daskexecutor, docker, odbc) - we could > release them now while we are iterating

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on December 08, 2023

Checked signatures, checksums, licences, sources and tested my changes; all look good. -0 (binding) for Google provider, I think https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/34919 will impact memory usage if there are a lot of files (here you find my assumption https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/361

Re: [VOTE] November PR of the Month

+1 for #32646 On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 6:32 AM Rahul Vats wrote: > +1 for #32646 > > Regards, > Rahul Vats > > On Tue, 28 Nov, 2023, 09:55 Aritra Basu, wrote: > > > +1 to #32646 from me too > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Aritra Basu > > > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023, 9:50 AM Amogh Desai > > wrote: > >

  1   2   >