+1 binding
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 at 12:38, Pavankumar Gopidesu
wrote:
> +1 non binding.
>
> Tested a few examples with ShortCircuitOperator , looks good to me.
>
> Pavan
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 7:40 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote:
>
> > +1 (binding) - checked:
> >
> > * svn
> > * installation
> > * re
Dear Airflow community,
I'm happy to announce that Airflow 3.0.3 was just released.
The released sources and packages can be downloaded via
https://airflow.apache.org/docs/apache-airflow/3.0.3
/installation/installing-from-sources.html
Other installation methods are described in
https://airflow.
It is finally done 🎉
The vote to release Apache Airflow version 3.0.3 based on 3.0.3rc6 &Task
SDK 1.0.3 from 1.0.3rc6 is now closed.
The vote PASSED with 6 binding "+1", 4 non-binding "+1" and 0 "-1" votes:
*"+1" Binding votes*:
- Kaxil Naik
- Jens
Nice 🎉
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 at 20:29, Pavankumar Gopidesu
wrote:
> Thanks Sunak, yes we are almost done :)
>
> Pavan
>
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 9:02 AM Ankit Chaurasia
> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > He it's almost done.
> >
> > Yes, just realised.
> >
> > *Ankit Chaurasia*
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Hey fellow Airflowers,
The release candidates for *Apache Airflow 3.0.3rc6 *and *Task SDK
1.0.3rc6* are
now available for testing!
This email is calling for a vote on the release, which will last at least
until 14th July and until 3 binding +1 votes have been received.
Consider this my +1 bindin
Checked SHA512 checksums
> > >>
> > >> Installed the RC bits with breeze and performed targeted testing for
> > all my
> > >> changes
> > >> as reported in
> > >>
> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/52746#issuecomment-3055
Hey fellow Airflowers,
The release candidates for *Apache Airflow 3.0.3rc5 *and *Task SDK
1.0.3rc5* are
now available for testing!
This email is calling for a vote on the release, which will last at least
until 14th July and until 3 binding +1 votes have been received.
Consider this my +1 bindin
Cancelling this vote, more bugs
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 at 17:44, Kaxil Naik wrote:
> Hey fellow Airflowers,
>
> The release candidates for *Apache Airflow 3.0.3rc4 *and *Task SDK
> 1.0.3rc4* are now available for testing!
>
> This email is calling for an accelerated vote on the r
Hey fellow Airflowers,
The release candidates for *Apache Airflow 3.0.3rc4 *and *Task SDK
1.0.3rc4* are
now available for testing!
This email is calling for an accelerated vote on the release, which will
last at least until 8th July 1:30 pm UK time and until 3 binding +1 votes
have been received.
The
> >>>> status of tasks refreshes automatically then - but you need to at
> >>>> least once click "refresh" to get the grid show the new dag run. You
> >>>> can see it happening in this recording:
> >>>>
> >>>
&
Yup agreed with Jarek. A strong no from my side. We don't want to allow
authoring DAGs from Airflow UI especially just to provide an LLM interface.
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 at 12:27, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> Also you might take a look at Airflow Summit videos
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLG
Hey fellow Airflowers,
The release candidates for A*pache Airflow 3.0.3rc3 *and *Task SDK
1.0.3rc3* are
now available for testing!
This email is calling for a vote on the release, which will last at least
until 8th July and until 3 binding +1 votes have been received.
Consider this my +1 binding
Cancelling this vote as we found another regression:
https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/52845
On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 at 13:08, Marcin Szymański wrote:
> +1 now from me after 52822 had been fixed. Thanks for a super fast
> turnaround.
>
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2025, 23:43 Kaxil
Task SDK docs:
https://airflow.staged.apache.org/docs/task-sdk/1.0.3/index.html
On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 at 02:49, Kaxil Naik wrote:
> Hey fellow Airflowers,
>
> The release candidates for A*pache Airflow 3.0.3rc2 *and *Task SDK
> 1.0.3rc2* are now available for testing!
>
> This em
Hey fellow Airflowers,
The release candidates for A*pache Airflow 3.0.3rc2 *and *Task SDK
1.0.3rc2* are
now available for testing!
This email is calling for a vote on the release, which will last at least
until 8th July and until 3 binding +1 votes have been received.
Consider this my +1 binding
ain scenarios.
> I've raised https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/52762
> , and see it as -1 (non-binding)
>
> Regards
> Marcin
>
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2025, 23:02 Kaxil Naik wrote:
>
> > Hey fellow Airflowers,
> >
> > The release candidates for A*pache Air
Hey fellow Airflowers,
The release candidates for A*pache Airflow 3.0.3rc1 *and *Task SDK 1.0.3rc1*
are now available for testing!
This email is calling for a vote on the release, which will last at least
until 8th July and until 3 binding +1 votes have been received.
Consider this my +1 binding
I prefer Option 2 as well to avoid matrix of dependencies
On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 at 01:03, Jens Scheffler
wrote:
> I'd also rather prefer option 2 - reason here is it is rather pragmatic
> and we no not need to cut another package and have less package counts
> and dependencies.
>
> I remember some
> > > is cool.
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jun 28, 2025 at 1:53 PM Blain David >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm willing to help to migrate the Microsoft Azure one and maybe
> > common
> > > > >
Hello folks,
Happy weekend.
We need community help to migrate all provider packages to use the new Task
SDK BaseOperator import for Airflow 3.0 compatibility while maintaining
backward compatibility with Airflow 2.x.
Details in https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/52378
Standard & Google pr
Awesome
On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 at 00:57, Vincent Beck wrote:
> Nice job!
>
> On 2025/06/27 18:45:46 Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> > Fantastic!
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 4:27 PM Pavankumar Gopidesu <
> gopidesupa...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Great work Elad.
> > >
> > > pavan
> > >
> > > On Fri,
(And yeah a big shoutout to IIy Egorov too for a lot of discussions around
locking, async vs sync etc
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 at 18:00, Kaxil Naik wrote:
> My vote goes to the Underrated 51153 too.
>
> And a shoutout to both 51699 & 51153.
>
> Interesting suggestion from Pierre t
My vote goes to the Underrated 51153 too.
And a shoutout to both 51699 & 51153.
Interesting suggestion from Pierre to keep this for non-committers only. I
like the idea -- or maybe we at least have 1 committer & 1 for
non-committers. dunno.
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 at 16:42, Tzu-ping Chung
wrote:
Dear Airflow Community,
The Project Management Committee (PMC) for Apache Airflow has invited *Amogh
Desai *to become a PMC member and we are excited to announce that he has
accepted our invitation.
Amogh has been a committer for the past 1.5 years and has made significant
contributions to the pr
It looks like everyone is mostly on the same page based on all the emails -
so no comments :) .
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 at 07:45, Wei Lee wrote:
> I’m +1 for 1-3 (assuming the doc changes relate to the backported version).
> +0.5 for 4. I hope that changes not related to new features will be
> backp
Thanks Wei.
1) "Human in the Loop": +1 on the naming. Standard names. HITL acronym is
also pretty standard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-in-the-loop |
https://cloud.google.com/discover/human-in-the-loop). "interactive" is a
loaded term and be pretty vague.
2) re: Standard vs Separate Provid
+1 binding, ran a few dags
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 at 13:00, Amogh Desai wrote:
> +1 non binding.
>
> Installed the helm chart in a local minikube cluster and was able to run
> airflow 3.0.2 without any issues. Ran a few example dags and played around
> a bit on the UI with port forwarding, seems ok
+1 binding
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 at 17:44, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> +1 (binding) - Checked SVN, list of files, docker installation,
> reproducible packages, licences, signatures. checked all my changes are in.
>
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 1:33 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor wrote:
>
> > +1 binding
> >
> > > On
Dear Airflow community,
I'm happy to announce that Apache Airflow Python Client 3.0.2 was just
released.
We made this version available on PyPI for convenience:
`pip install apache-airflow-client==3.0.2`
https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-client/3.0.2/
The documentation is available at:
ht
The vote to release Apache Airflow Python Client 3.0.2 from 3.0.2rc1 has
now passed.
3 "+1" binding votes received:
- Kaxil Naik
- Jens Scheffler
- Jarek Potiuk
Vote thread:
https://lists.apache.org/thread/r3hz4dc3rqgzx4z8pwnkwnvzldxyhvbw
I'll continue with the release process,
Hey fellow Airflowers,
I have cut the first release candidate for the Apache Airflow Python Client
3.0.2.
This email is calling for a vote on the release,
which will last for 72 hours. Consider this my (binding) +1.
Airflow Client 3.0.2rc1 is available at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/a
Dear Airflow community,
I'm happy to announce that Airflow 3.0.2 was just released.
The released sources and packages can be downloaded via
https://airflow.apache.org/docs/apache-airflow/3.0.2
/installation/installing-from-sources.html
Other installation methods are described in
https://airflow.
Hello Airflow Community,
The vote to release Apache Airflow version 3.0.2 based on 3.0.2rc2 &Task
SDK 1.0.2 from 1.0.2rc2 is now closed.
The vote PASSED with 4 binding "+1", 3 non-binding "+1" and 0 "-1" votes:
*"+1" Binding votes*:
- Kaxil Na
Awesome, thanks Jarek
On Sun, 8 Jun 2025 at 03:13, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> Dear Airflow community,
>
> I'm happy to announce that new versions of Airflow Providers packages
> prepared on June 03, 2025
> were just released. Full list of PyPI packages released is added at the
> end of the message.
>
Hey fellow Airflowers,
The release candidates for *Apache Airflow 3.0.2rc2* and *Task SDK
1.0.2rc2* are
now available for testing!
This email is calling for a vote on the release, which will last at least
until *10th June* and until 3 binding +1 votes have been received.
Consider this my +1 bind
y now, and here is the fixing PR
> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/51464
>
> Best,
> Wei
>
> > On Jun 4, 2025, at 7:51 PM, Kaxil Naik wrote:
> >
> > It is no longer needed as the sdist is the source distribution
> >
> > On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 at 03:35,
+1 binding
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 at 23:07, Vincent Beck wrote:
> +1 binding. Looks really good!
>
> On 2025/06/04 16:45:24 "Oliveira, Niko" wrote:
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> >
> >
> > Overall it looks great! I left some comments on the AIP document, but
> nothing that would block a +1
> >
> > Cheers,
>
effler wrote:
> > +1 (binding) - Checked SVN, Reproducible package build, Licenses,
> > Signatures
> >
> > On 03.06.25 22:59, Kaxil Naik wrote:
> >> Hey fellow Airflowers,
> >>
> >> The release candidates for *Apache Airflow 3.0.2rc1* and *Task SDK
&g
Hey fellow Airflowers,
The release candidates for *Apache Airflow 3.0.2rc1* and *Task SDK
1.0.2rc1* are
now available for testing!
This email is calling for a vote on the release, which will last at least
until 10th June and until 3 binding +1 votes have been received.
Consider this my +1 bindin
d be done. I think the real value is
> in
> > providing an implementation of a limited set of more complex base tools
> > like debug_failed_task (described above), pause_all_active_DAGs (because
> > I'm about to upgrade!), describe_DAG (grabs only the description,
> &g
we need more aggregated, new APIs (maybe simply
> new REST API calls we need) that will allow the agents to reason better and
> faster. All of that is possible.
>
> J
>
> On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 11:29 AM Kaxil Naik wrote:
>
> > You can easily add as many tools you want:
&g
newer abstractions which I am happy to comment during
the development phase too. Like everything else we need to ensure
maintainability is worth the value we create.
On Fri, 30 May 2025 at 14:48, Kaxil Naik wrote:
> Btw we don’t need to use FastMCP just for create MCP from OpenApi spec.
>
ou are an AI agent . ") ?
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 10:52 PM Kaxil Naik wrote:
>
> > One more comment: MCP SDKs have advanced quite a bit and I was able to
> get
> > an Airflow MCP Server working with just the following code block. I was
> > successfully ab
Needless to say this is a simplistic example, but only point being we
should use the newer abstractions :) which I am happy to comment during the
development phase too
On Fri, 30 May 2025 at 02:20, Kaxil Naik wrote:
> One more comment: MCP SDKs have advanced quite a bit and I was able to
ent,
name="Airflow 3.0 API Server"
)
if __name__ == "__main__":
mcp.run()
On Thu, 29 May 2025 at 20:32, Avi wrote:
> @Shahar -- Yes. Definitely. Feel free to reachout if you need anything.
>
> I totally agree, it to live as a separate repo.
>
>
hahar Epstein wrote:
>
> > If it's ok, I would like to lead the AIP effort (or at least co-lead), as
> > I've never written an AIP before. I could start drafting it during the
> next
> > week.
> > Avi - please let me know if it works for you.
> &
Yes separate repo, please and we would need someone to lead this effort on
the proposal & development too. Avi - you are probably well equipped to
lead it and I am sure more folks like Aaraon would be eager to work on its
development and on-going maintenance.
Regards,
Kaxil
On Thu, 29 May 2025 at
The vote to release Apache Airflow Python Client 3.0.0 from 3.0.0rc3 has
now passed.
3 "+1" binding votes received:
- Kaxil Naik
- Jarek Potiuk
- Jens Scheffler
1 "+1" non-binding votes received:
- Buğra Öztürk
Vote thread:
https://lists.apache.org/thread/v9vhkn2o11gyfhv01f
Dear Airflow community,
I'm happy to announce that Apache Airflow Python Client 3.0.0 was just
released.
We made this version available on PyPI for convenience:
`pip install apache-airflow-client`
https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-client/3.0.0/
The documentation is available at:
https://gi
adache of fixing "two" ways of doing things!
> >
> > Thanks & Regards,
> > Amogh Desai
> >
> >
> > On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 2:22 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> >
> > > Cool!
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 8:19 PM Kaxil Naik
Hey fellow Airflowers,
I have cut the first release candidate for the Apache Airflow Python Client
3.0.0.
This email is calling for a vote on the release,
which will last for 72 hours. Consider this my (binding) +1.
Airflow Client 3.0.0rc3 is available at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/a
Lazy consensus reached, merging PR
On Tue, 20 May 2025 at 00:22, Kaxil Naik wrote:
> Hi team,
>
> As a follow-up to the discussion in
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/xsj7h4gyk51ktxt8z9xppckknojdq70v , I want
> to call for a lazy consensus to formally decide and document it.
Hey team,
Happy to announce that the last two items that were using the legacy
execution path have been ported over. Now we have just a single execution
path.
- https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/50141 (Monster PR!)
- https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/50827
- https://github.com/
Cancelling the vote due to the issue Jarek mentioned. I will cut rc3 soon
On Thu, 22 May 2025 at 22:44, Kaxil Naik wrote:
> Yeah rc3 it is!
>
> On Thu, 22 May 2025 at 22:15, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
>
>> -1: I am afraid. The client this time has a bit more differe
ficantly decrease) all
> > "non-greenes" of "main" and "v3-0-test" - so that one is next on my
> list.
> >
> > On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 4:51 PM Kaxil Naik wrote:
> >
> >> Still looking for testing and votes here :)
> >>
Still looking for testing and votes here :)
On Tue, 20 May 2025 at 21:21, Kaxil Naik wrote:
> Hey fellow Airflowers,
>
> I have cut the first release candidate for the Apache Airflow Python
> Client 3.0.0.
> This email is calling for a vote on the release,
> which will
Hey fellow Airflowers,
I have cut the first release candidate for the Apache Airflow Python Client
3.0.0.
This email is calling for a vote on the release,
which will last for 72 hours. Consider this my (binding) +1.
Airflow Client 3.0.0rc2 is available at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/a
Cancelling the vote due to the pydantic limit. I will cut rc2 next
On Tue, 20 May 2025 at 16:56, Kaxil Naik wrote:
> Yeah, agreed. I'll create rc2 fixing the urllib limit
>
> On Tue, 20 May 2025 at 07:19, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
>
>> +1 binding - but with a few caveats, an
lambda'. Possibly rc2 with the urllib limit applied is a good
> idea.
>
> BTW. It is yet another reason why we should consider dropping Python 3.9
> faster.
>
> J.
>
>
> On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 8:35 AM Kaxil Naik wrote:
>
> > Hey fellow Airflowers,
> >
+1 binding : checked signature & license
On Tue, 20 May 2025 at 15:27, Elad Kalif 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 *24 hours* - which means
> that it will end on May 21, 2025 09:55 AM
Dear Airflow community,
I'm happy to announce that Airflow 2.11.0 was just released.
The released sources and packages can be downloaded via
https://airflow.apache.org/docs/apache-airflow/2.11.0/installation/installing-from-sources.html
Other installation methods are described in
https://airflow
Hello Airflow Community,
The vote to release Apache Airflow version 2.11.0 based on 2.11.0rc1 is now
closed.
The vote PASSED with 4 binding "+1", 7 non-binding "+1" and 0 "-1" votes:
*"+1" Binding votes*:
- Kaxil Naik
- Jens Scheffler
- Jed Cunningha
Hi team,
As a follow-up to the discussion in
https://lists.apache.org/thread/xsj7h4gyk51ktxt8z9xppckknojdq70v , I want
to call for a lazy consensus to formally decide and document it.
Airflow 2.x line will be maintained for:
- 6 months of maintenance support for "bug fixes"
- 12 months of
Cool, will create a Lazy consensus with 6+6
On Fri, 16 May 2025 at 01:52, Jed Cunningham
wrote:
> +1 to 6+6.
>
> Not sure we really need to clarify what the dates mean as part of setting
> timelines - we already operate this way. But if we have anywhere that is
> vague in our docs etc, of course
Good idea. However, there is some overlap with ObjectStorage too. OpenDAL
looks to be a superset of ObjectStorage for sure, but we will need to
figure out the messaging to users from POV of what they should be using.
On Mon, 19 May 2025 at 13:31, Pavankumar Gopidesu
wrote:
> Yes Vikram we can di
; Tried to put up fixes in https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/50745
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Wei
> > >
> > >
> > >> On May 17, 2025, at 9:42 PM, Shahar Epstein
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> +1 (non-binding)
> > >>
Hey fellow Airflowers,
I have cut the first release candidate for the Apache Airflow Python Client
3.0.0.
This email is calling for a vote on the release,
which will last for 72 hours. Consider this my (binding) +1.
Airflow Client 3.0.0rc1 is available at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/a
🎉 Woho
On Fri, 16 May 2025 at 11:39, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> For those who are still going to take a look, at providers I just completed
> some testing and fixes and merged a few PRs of mine (few are still left) -
> and run some syncing - and can now say officially that this release of
> providers
Hey fellow Airflowers,
The release candidates for *Apache Airflow 2.11.0rc1* are now available for
testing!
This email is calling for a vote on the release, which will last at least
until 20th May, 6:00 am GMT and until 3 binding +1 votes have been received.
Consider this my +1 binding vote.
Ai
Hi team,
Airflow 3.0+ uses Task Execution API, which uses Cadywn for versioning. To
ensure backwards compatibility is maintained between different Airflow
versioning with regards to this Execution API, please refer to
https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/contributing-docs/19_execution_api_v
Dear Airflow community,
I'm happy to announce that Airflow 3.0.1 was just released.
The released sources and packages can be downloaded via
https://airflow.apache.org/docs/apache-airflow/3.0.1/installation/installing-from-sources.html
Other installation methods are described in
https://airflow.a
Hello Airflow Community,
The vote to release Apache Airflow version 3.0.1 based on 3.0.1rc1 &Task
SDK 1.0.1 from 1.0.1rc1 is now closed.
The vote PASSED with 4 binding "+1", 3 non-binding "+1" and 0 "-1" votes:
*"+1" Binding votes*:
- Kaxil Naik
- Ep
Hey all,
I am happy to share that `dag.test` has now been ported over to use the
Task SDK execution path as part of
https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/50300 .
This change eliminates one of the last remaining places in Airflow that
still relied on the old execution flow from Airflow 2.x, which
slack.com/messaging/webhooks |
> > > > apache-airflow-providers-smtp | Simple Mail Transfer
> > Protocol
> > > > (SMTP) https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321 |
> 2.0.3
> > > > apache-airflow-provi
+1 binding
On Fri, 9 May 2025 at 20:46, Hussein Awala wrote:
> +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
>
Great work, Pavan in leading this effort and anyone else who contributed
for this work: Jarek, Jens and team. This is going to be a massive speed-up
for Elad & me and allow even more contributions since we don't have to wait
for 5 mins to checkout the airflow-site repo.
On Fri, 9 May 2025 at 13:4
For me, a huge +1 to https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49532 &
https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49468
Those were huge lifts
On Fri, 9 May 2025 at 00:45, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> +1 #48528
>
> On Thu, May 8, 2025 at 8:47 PM Jens Scheffler
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the reminder @Amogh...
(sry late addition -- I just recalled about those)
On Fri, 9 May 2025 at 01:09, Kaxil Naik wrote:
> Both those weren't in the list but they deserve to be recognized (at least
> for me) .
>
>
>- https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49532
>- https://github.com/ap
Both those weren't in the list but they deserve to be recognized (at least
for me) .
- https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49532
- https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49468
On Fri, 9 May 2025 at 01:07, Kaxil Naik wrote:
> For me, a huge +1 to https://github.com/apache
Worth adding it as an agenda item for dev call -- I am sure more folks
might want to help out on this one.
On Wed, 7 May 2025 at 15:44, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> I think it would be great to get someone to take a lead and define what we
> should do here. From what I see (and slack discussion here
>
/airflow:slim-3.0.1rc1
docker pull apache/airflow:slim-3.0.1rc1-python3.12
docker pull apache/airflow:slim-3.0.1rc1-python3.11
docker pull apache/airflow:slim-3.0.1rc1-python3.10
docker pull apache/airflow:slim-3.0.1rc1-python3.9
On Wed, 7 May 2025 at 02:43, Kaxil Naik wrote:
> Hey fel
Hey fellow Airflowers,
The release candidates for *Apache Airflow 3.0.1rc1* and *Task SDK 1.0.1rc1*
are now available for testing!
This email is calling for a vote on the release, which will last at least
until 12th May, 10:00 am GMT and until 3 binding +1 votes have been
received.
Consider this
Nice -- in time for 3.1 and was happy to see this coming out of long
weekend.
On Mon, 5 May 2025 at 17:49, Amogh Desai wrote:
> This is awesome, thank you so much Jarek!
>
> This will significantly speed up things :)
> Thanks & Regards,
> Amogh Desai
>
>
> On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 7:44 AM Pavankum
>
> On Thu, May 1, 2025 at 11:35 AM Kaxil Naik wrote:
>
> > >But I would personally love to see more "yes, but" than "no".
> >
> > Saying "would love to hear what you think" in the original message
> followed
> > by terming &quo
" when you start your message with "I am strongly -1 on that".
> There is no further explanation given that changes that perception.
>
> On Thu, May 1, 2025 at 11:32 AM Kaxil Naik wrote:
>
> > "-1" was backed with rationale discussion and no one has said it was
>But I would personally love to see more "yes, but" than "no".
Saying "would love to hear what you think" in the original message followed
by terming "negative" is not the way to collaborate.
On Thu, 1 May 2025 at 15:01, Kaxil Naik wrote:
> "
energised and inspired to look for a better solution.
>
> And yes I know different people have different communication style, and
> there are cultural differences and all that. But I would personally love to
> see more "yes, but" than "no".
>
> That's all
those issues should not happen (hopefully), so I'd say we
> can
> > > now
> > > > "truly" see how it might work.
> > > >
> > > > And one comment from my side - indeed, I find it nice actually, but
> > it's
> > > > definitely n
ble make the flow easy and then enable again
> if the decision move towards having it.
>
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025, 17:47 Kaxil Naik, wrote:
>
> > Regarding what we need, though, I don't think we want to disable branch
> > protection or allow overriding it. If that happens, P
st
> >>> > botocore/celery (?) "special tests" -> all that is already addressed
> in
> >>> > main, and those issues should not happen (hopefully), so I'd say we
> >>> can now
> >>> > "truly" see how it might work
just an idea: With "git bundles", maybe example DAGs from standard provider
can be dynamically imported?
But from your options: (1) seems reasonable
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 15:07, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> Hello here.
>
> While fixing a bug in the doc generation to bring "source" link to example
> d
Forgot to note an additional point in Summary: If we find anything blocking
us in that period, we will merge
https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/50009 to disable auto-merge.
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 14:26, Kaxil Naik wrote:
> Jarek & I discussed it on Slack in #internal-airflow-ci-cd.
run for a few more days so other committers and contributors can get a
chance to try it out and share their experience after the experiment/trial
is concluded.
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 13:59, Kaxil Naik wrote:
> Whoops yeah.
>
> >Yep. Because it did not have all conversations resolv
tiuk wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 7:55 AM Kaxil Naik wrote:
>
> > To the point that the original PR is still not merged even after I had
> > re-triggered the failed tests yesterday:
> > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49727
> >
> >
> Yep. Beca
To the point that the original PR is still not merged even after I had
re-triggered the failed tests yesterday:
https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49727
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 11:20, Kaxil Naik wrote:
> The gitbox escape hatch isn't it though -- if we are to allow that why no
The gitbox escape hatch isn't it though -- if we are to allow that why not
just allow people to merge it directly from github that to go via an
"escape hatch".
I am -1 on this auto-merge feature
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 11:18, Kaxil Naik wrote:
> That’s not a single pers
BRANCH_NAME:main (you need to provide your apache id and
> > password)
> >
> > This is a nice escape hatch that we can use as "exceptional workflow" -
> > and it works - I did it quite a few times over the last few days. Not UI
> > controlled, but IMHO exceptional workflo
Similar experience as Elad, I am in favor of disabling it tbh. For example,
https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49727 has a failing test as below --
which is not an issue, and test passes locally so I would want to merge it
but I can't.
FAILED
helm-tests/tests/helm_tests/airflow_aux/test_basic_
Hi team,
I have just cut the `v2-11-test` branch in preparation for the next minor
release in the Airflow 2 series.
The next Airflow 2 release will be 2.11.0 (not 2.10.6), and it is
tentatively planned to follow the release of 3.0.1.
If you are a committer planning to backport fixes or enhanceme
Thanks Vikram for the update
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 at 02:02, Vikram Koka
wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> With the weekly cadence setup a couple of months ago, we had a dev call
> scheduled for Thursday, the 1st of May at 8AM PST (11 am EST | 4 pm UTC /
> GMT).
>
> I know a number of people are taking so
1 - 100 of 1196 matches
Mail list logo
