Re: [DISCUSS] Merging cherry-picked PRs when green (and actually doing it)

Just want to make sure. Should we merge our own backport PR when it’s ready? I feel a bit uncomfortable merging it, as it’s technically my code. I still requested others to review it again in the past few occurrences. Best, Wei > On Aug 4, 2025, at 2:03 PM, Amogh Desai wrote: > > Yeah, it's e

Re: [VOTE] July 2025 PR of the Month

Not sure whether it was missed by the script ( https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49470#issuecomment-3057574807). But I would like to vote for #49470. It's hard work that spans over six months and has been reworked multiple times due to conflict. Best, Wei Pierre Jeambrun 於 2025年7月29日 週二

Re: [DISCUSS] Consistent test assertion style: pytest-native vs unittest-style

I like what TP proposed. Even the original pytest style fits my taste better. The unittest style bugs me when I first contributed to Airflow. It’s already way better than it used to be. But, I would love to see it move more towards a pytest style. Best, Wei > On Jul 10, 2025, at 2:30 PM, Tzu-p

Re: [Discussion] AIP-90: Should It Be Implemented in the Standard Provider or as a standalone provider?

In case anyone's referring to the old PR, here is the link to the new PR https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/52868 Best, Wei On 2025/06/26 12:10:24 Wei Lee wrote: > I agree with Ash's point. Given how other pipeline tools function, this > appears to be a standard feature.

Re: [Meeting Notes] Airflow 3 dev call - 3 July 2025

Thanks Vikram and everyone for helping out communicating the design change of AIP-90. The new PR is now ready. Would love to have some reviews. Thanks! https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/52868 Best, Wei On 2025/07/07 08:36:46 Eugen Kosteev wrote: > Thank you! > > On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 10:

Re: [DISCUSS] Use ~= for python requires?

I prefer the later (>=3.10, <4) somewhat more, but not strongly. It’s easier to understand IMO. Best, Wei > On Jul 7, 2025, at 5:12 PM, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > > Hello here, > > If you have not noticed - we have a little bit of drama because in the > latest `uv` version, Astral unilaterally dec

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 3.0.3 from 3.0.3rc3 & Task SDK 1.0.3 from 1.0.3rc3

+1 non-binding. Tested my migration fixes and ran a few dags. Best, Wei > On Jul 7, 2025, at 4:37 AM, Pavankumar Gopidesu > wrote: > > +1 non-binding. > > Tested a few examples: dags, LGTM. > > There is one default example dag broken with import errors, I have added a > fix here, https://gi

Re: [VOTE] June 2025 PR of the Month

I guess I’ll be the first one to vote for 51292 👀 Best, Wei > On Jun 27, 2025, at 6:11 PM, kalyan reddy wrote: > > +1 to #51699 > > From: Jarek Potiuk > Sent: 27 June 2025 15:33 > To: dev@airflow.apache.org > Subject: Re: [VOTE] June 2025 PR of the Month > >

Re: [HELP NEEDED][DISCUSSION] SQLAlchemy v2 support

> 2. Should we work on supporting SQLA 2.0 or jump straight to 2.1 (which is currently in beta)? Unless there’s a major reason to upgrade to 2.1, I would suggest supporting SQLA 2.0 instead. Upgrading to 2.0 alone could disrupt enough package dependencies (from the user end), and moving to 2.

Re: [Discussion] AIP-90: Should It Be Implemented in the Standard Provider or as a standalone provider?

; happy > > >>> with > > >>>> keeping it in the Standard provider. Seems like a "core" > functionality > > >>>> compared to Control+M, and other legacy tools as well as new AI > tools. > > >>>> > > >&g

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New PMC member: Amogh Desai

Congratulations Amogh! Well deserved! Best, Wei Scheffler Jens (XC-AS/EAE-ADA-T) 於 2025年6月26日 週四 下午7:42寫道： > Hi Amogh, > we saw the great investment and engagement you were putting into Airflow > in the past and thanks for all the work. Welcoming you as PMC member and > also saying: well deserv

Re: [Discussion] AIP-90: Should It Be Implemented in the Standard Provider or as a standalone provider?

t; https://ibb.co/3Y03xN06) >>> >>> [image: Screenshot 2025-06-23 at 06.05.38.png] >>> >>> We should design "Human In the Loop" of ours in a very similar way - i.e. >>> give the author of the "HIL" interaction capability of adding U

Re: [DISCUSS] What should we cherry-pick ?

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 backported when feasible; however, we can skip them if the required effort is substantial. This is because failing to backport these items could potentia

[Discussion] AIP-90: Should It Be Implemented in the Standard Provider or as a standalone provider?

ested by Bas and Ash. Here is the PoC PR. https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/52053 It's not ready to be reviewed yet, but I'll try to wrap it up over the next few days. Several features are still missing and will be implemented in the following pull requests. Thanks! Best regards, Wei Lee

Re: [Discussion] AIP-90: Should It Be Implemented in the Standard Provider or as a standalone provider?

ons. I agree that it may be less than ideal >> from a technical perspective, but from a user perspective, I believe it is >> better to stick with a known term, rather than to invent our own. >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 22, 2025 at 7:07 PM Wei Lee wrote: >>

Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping Python 3.9 support

+1, I even thought we had already done it 🤔 Best, Wei > On Jun 23, 2025, at 1:50 PM, Amogh Desai wrote: > > +1 to this. > > Since the tentative date for PY 3.9 deprecation is nearing (Oct 2025), > since we support > 3.10 (relatively easier migration), I do not see why we should delay the > sup

[Result][VOTE] Adding @RoyLee1224 @guan404ming as Non-Committer Translation Owners and @jason810496 as both a Code Owner and Translation Owner

Hello, Adding @RoyLee1224 @guan404ming as Non-Committer Translation Owners and @jason810496 as both a Code Owner and Translation Owner have been accepted. 3 "+1" binding votes from PMC members - Jarek Potiuk - Jens Scheffler - Brent Bovenzi 6 "+1" votes from non-PMC memb

Re: [LAZY CONCENSUS] Adding Hussein Awala as a Code Owner & Translation Owner

+1 > On Jun 14, 2025, at 10:43 PM, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > > +1 binding > > On Sat, Jun 14, 2025 at 4:37 PM Brent Bovenzi > wrote: > >> +1 binding >> >> On Sat, Jun 14, 2025 at 5:38 AM Shahar Epstein wrote: >> >>> Hey everyone, >>> >>> According to section 6.1 in the i18n policy [1], I sugg

Re: [VOTE] Adding @RoyLee1224 @guan404ming as Non-Committer Translation Owners and @jason810496 as both a Code Owner and Translation Owner

ME.md On 2025/06/14 13:38:06 Zhe You Liu wrote: > +1 (binding) - Agreed, as we've already discussed offline in local community > (OpenSource4You). > > On 2025/06/14 13:28:09 Wei Lee wrote: > > Hi fellow Airflowers, > > > > Following the newly passed Internat

[VOTE] Adding @RoyLee1224 @guan404ming as Non-Committer Translation Owners and @jason810496 as both a Code Owner and Translation Owner

from a PMC member without objections from other committers or PMC members to add @RoyLee1224 and @guan404ming as Non-Committer Translation Owners. If the criteria mentioned above are met within three days (until June 17th, 23:59 PM AoE), I will merge the PR. Thanks, Wei Lee [1] https://github.

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 3.0.2 from 3.0.2rc2 & Task SDK 1.0.2 from 1.0.2rc2

+1 non-binding, tested my changes and a few dags Best, Wei > On Jun 10, 2025, at 3:27 AM, Rahul Vats wrote: > > +1 non binding. Tried running example dags all looks good. > > Regards, > Rahul Vats > > > On Mon, 9 Jun, 2025, 11:52 Amogh Desai, wrote: > >> @Jarek Potiuk I agree with you. We

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 3.0.2 from 3.0.2rc1 & Task SDK 1.0.2 from 1.0.2rc1

Hi I found one critical bug that will break most asset-related features. "example_assets.py" won't work correctly 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 t

Re: [VOTE] Internationalization (i18n) policy

nding - thanks for the discussion and preparation of the >>> policy! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 04.06.25 21:58, Shahar Epstein wrote: >>>>>>>> I would like to start a vote for the following: >>>>>>&

Re: [VOTE] AIP-90 Human in the loop

+1 to this AIP, but have concerns on the term “Human” as well. “manual”, what Shahar suggested, seems to be a great alternative! Best, Wei > On Jun 4, 2025, at 5:33 PM, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > > +1. Yeah "Human" is not necessarily best name so we might want to change > the name but overall it's g

Re: [DISCUSS] i18n maintanability policy

Thanks Shahar! Just left a few comments. If we’re to make it part of an AIP, a standalone one would probably be better IMO. Best, Wei > On Jun 1, 2025, at 3:09 PM, Shahar Epstein wrote: > > Hello community! > > It's great to see that people from all over the world make Airflow > multilingual

Re: [VOTE] May 2025 PR of the Month

Definitely +1 50626! But, also love 50964. Best, Wei > On May 30, 2025, at 9:17 AM, Tzu-ping Chung > wrote: > > My vote is also 50626, but special shoutout to 50924. It would have won if > opened any other month! > > TP > > -- > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 30 May 2025, at 09:46, Ferruzzi,

Re: [Lazy Concensus] Naming tweak in Deadlines table

Not sure whether "deadline.deadline_time" is an ok idea 🤔 I also worry about what Jens said. Best, Wei > On May 27, 2025, at 4:26 AM, Jens Scheffler > wrote: > > Hi Denis, > > from point of content of the name matching to the meaning I agree - but I > have doubts because the column name con

Re: [DISCUSS] Human in the loop

I like this idea. As Jens mentioned, this should be an opt-in feature, and starting with providers seems reasonable. After that, we could probably get feedback from users and see how we could improve UI/UX. Best, Wei > On May 21, 2025, at 5:36 AM, Jens Scheffler > wrote: > > Hi All, > > oh

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.11.0 from 2.11.0rc1

s not adding/changing any migration rule and the same bug is in 2.10.5 >> > - no new and no serious problem introduced and as such this should not >> > block the release of 2.11. Might be okay to develop a fix into 2.11 line >> > later as well. >> > >>

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.11.0 from 2.11.0rc1

I think so. Best, Wei > On May 18, 2025, at 2:41 PM, Rahul Vats wrote: > > Wei, the migration Issue <https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/50745> is > only specific to SQLite, right? > > Regards, > Rahul Vats > > On Sun, 18 May 2025 at 11:41, Wei

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.11.0 from 2.11.0rc1

-1 (non-binding) Encountered a few issues during testing `airflow db migrate` with 2.11.0rc1 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) > > On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 10:53 PM Kaxil N

[Help Needed] Check Ruff linting rules

Hi all, During the development of Airflow 3.0, some content in the newsfragment was outdated, incorrect, or missing. Thus, some Ruff rules were not implemented correctly. Last week, I reviewed the rules on the Ruff side and submitted several PRs to address these issues. The rules listed in this

Re: Au revoir Flask

This is nice! Best, Wei > On Apr 8, 2025, at 3:35 AM, Vikram Koka wrote: > > Very cool! > > Great work here! Love the "FAB-light" state. > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 12:22 PM Jarek Potiuk wrote: > >> Cool. We are now FAB-light (not yet FAB-less, but that's still a win). >> >> On Mon, Apr 7,

Re: [DISCUSSION] Airflow 2 DAGs compatible with Airflow 3

omething imo > > On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 at 07:41, Wei Lee wrote: > >> Hi Kaxil, >> >>> Instead handle it via ruff rules AIR2 something >> >> Does that mean we need to add an `AIR2` for `_operator`? In the current >> implementation, they are in `AIR303`

Re: [DISCUSSION] Airflow 2 DAGs compatible with Airflow 3

Hi Kaxil, > Instead handle it via ruff rules AIR2 something Does that mean we need to add an `AIR2` for `_operator`? In the current implementation, they are in `AIR303` (moved to provider). It also raises a new thing I'd like to confirm. We're to mark the suggested change for `airflow.operators

Re: New committer: Rahul Vats

Congratulations! Best, Wei > On Apr 1, 2025, at 8:36 AM, Zhe You Liu wrote: > > Congrats Rahul, well deserved! > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 9:28 AM Ephraim Anierobi > wrote: > >> Congratulations Rahul! Well deserved >> >> On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 at 01:27, Pierre Jeambrun >> wrote: >> >>> Amazing

Re: [VOTE] March 2025 PR of the Month

My vote goes to #47433. It unblocks numerous AIP-84 related PRs. Best, Wei > On Mar 25, 2025, at 7:52 PM, Amogh Desai wrote: > > Missed a point. > > Not to mention the tons of things it broke :) > > It took almost 2-3 days to get the tests working, compat, providers etc :) > > Thanks to Ash

Re: [LAZY CONSENSUS] rename DAGs to dags / Dags in docs

Love this! Best, Wei > On Mar 20, 2025, at 4:15 AM, Daniel Standish > wrote: > > In what may go down as the most important PR of Airflow 3.0 (not to brag or > anything), I have gone through the docs and renamed DAGs to Dags: > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/47959 > > Recall there was

Re: Discuss: lets' stop posting on X and muffle our account there.

Yeah, I agree with TP. Keeping a distance from X seems reasonable, but it’s better to preserve the history. Best, Wei > On Mar 14, 2025, at 8:44 PM, Tzu-ping Chung > wrote: > > I disagree with the deleting post part. While it is legitimate to want to > distance from X, the history of associa

Re: New committers: Shubham Raj, Buğra Öztürk, LIU ZHE YOU, Kalyan Reddy !

Congratulations all! Best, Wei > On Mar 14, 2025, at 8:55 PM, Zhe You Liu wrote: > > Hi all, > > I truly appreciate all the guidance and support from the community in > helping me get started with contributing. > I'm excited to continue contributing to Airflow — it's an amazing project > with

Re: [DISCUSSION] Move Git DAG Bundle to Providers

+1 sounds like a good idea! Best, Wei > On Mar 14, 2025, at 1:47 PM, Amogh Desai wrote: > > Good idea, +1 for that idea to be able to decouple it out of core > > Thanks & Regards, > Amogh Desai > > > On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 at 10:13 AM, Jed Cunningham > wrote: > >> +1, better to have it in a p

Re: [VOTE] February 2025 PR of the Month

If we merge 46942, my vote goes to 46942. Really looking forward to it! Best, Wei > On Feb 26, 2025, at 5:55 AM, Vikram Koka wrote: > > +1 for 46939 > > Thought it was a great UX jump. > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 12:56 PM Jarek Potiuk wrote: > >> Can we proactively vote on https://github

Re: Two Hard Things: Deadline Alerts Edition

A bit late to the party, but DeadlineReference +1. Best, Wei > On Feb 25, 2025, at 4:02 AM, Daniel Standish > wrote: > > Stewing presently thank you :) > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 11:53 AM Ferruzzi, Dennis > wrote: > >> Alright then. DeadlineReference gets the green light for now! If any

Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal to enhance the PR template

Yep, I also think better labeling (and other CI checks) would be a better choice! (if we could and have the bandwidth to do so) Checkboxes often get overlooked, and might need some time to teach all contributors. Take the significant template as an example, I still need to check new newsfragment

Re: Airflow should deprecate the term "DAG" for end users

;> As has been mentioned on the thread the terms airflow and dag are kind of >> synonymous and I certainly don’t want to give the impression that we are >> breaking more than we are breaking. >> >> I wouldn’t die on this hill, but I’m slightly concerned. >> >> On Mo

Re: [DISCUSS] Time to say goodbye to the old UI?

+1 for this! And now is the best time. I'm not sure whether folks are comfortable with something not working on the new UI for now, though 🤔 (but there are also things breaking in the old UI that we won't fix anyway). Even if we decide to keep the old UI for one or two alpha/beta releases, I th

Re: Airflow should deprecate the term "DAG" for end users

; > "Around this time the renaming seems to have been renamed". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Naming is hard. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > &

Re: Airflow should deprecate the term "DAG" for end users

he developer community, so we'll need a solid plan on how to > > > introduce it, when we do. > > > > > > While we discuss this, I'd like to share about the Great Renaming in core > > > Python started by Guido back in 2009. We could probably get some > &

Re: [DISCUSS]: Proposing a "common message queue" abstraction

+1 to this idea! Best, Wei > On Feb 13, 2025, at 5:29 AM, Vikram Koka wrote: > > Hey everyone, > > I created the following (very early) draft PR > to introduce and socialize > the concept of a "Common Message Queue" abstraction, similar to the "Co

Re: [DISCUSS] Better CODEOWNERS - reflecting actual "interest" and "committment" in certain areas

Updating the CODEOWNERS seems like a good idea. I feel we probably need to do it occasionally once in a while (half or one year, maybe?) Best, Wei > On Feb 10, 2025, at 10:30 PM, Vincent Beck wrote: > > +1 on that proposal, refreshing the code owners would be a great idea. That > is something

Re: Updating "zombie task" terminology to "task heartbeat timeout"

I like this idea as well. But not sure whether it would affect monitoring. 🤔 If we’re to introduce it, we’d better make it airflow 3 only and make sure we add a migration rule as we’re changing the configuration Best, Wei > On Feb 12, 2025, at 6:10 AM, Ryan Hatter > wrote: > > I love it. "he

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

+1 non-binding. Best, Wei > On Feb 7, 2025, at 1:25 PM, Amogh Desai wrote: > > +1 non binding. > > Checked by running my existing example DAGs, no regressions. > > Thanks & Regards, > Amogh Desai > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 10:51 PM Vishnu Chilukoori > wrote: > >> +1 non-binding >> >> -

Re: [DISCUSS] Drop email integration from Airflow Core

I think we have already implemented many code changes. I'm not sure I understand why this change would be more painful than the others. However, I don’t have a strong opinion on this one. I just want to remind everyone that if we decide to make breaking changes, please remember to include a sign

Re: Reminder: feature freeze on Airflow core for 3.0 release window

Do we need to create a branch for 3.1+ features? So that we can still merge them instead of making them stale (not sure whether there’s anyone already working on new features before this announcement 🤔) Best, Wei > On Feb 7, 2025, at 7:17 AM, Vikram Koka wrote: > > Thanks for sending this out

Re: 📢 Apache Airflow 3.0.0apha1 is available for testing! 🎉

This is awesome! Here are short guides if anyone wants to test out the 2-to-3 migration tools. 1. Use "airflow config lint” command against your airflow env. It checks “airflow.cfg”, env vars etc. (Thanks to Ankit’s awesome work) 2. Update ruff [1] to 0.9.4 and run the following command ```shel

Re: [VOTE] January 2024 PR of the Month

#45563 +1, this is awesome! and thanks all for mentioning #45678 Best, Wei > On Jan 31, 2025, at 1:42 PM, Shahar Epstein wrote: > > Hey everyone and apologies for the delay - I'd like to appreciate > everyone's support for the Sphinx PR, > and thank Jarek and Jens for helping out :) > I'll cast

Re: [VOTE] Amendment to AIP-83 re uniqueness of logical date

+1 binding Best, Wei > On Jan 22, 2025, at 9:12 AM, Phani Kumar > wrote: > > +1 binding > > On Tue, 21 Jan, 2025, 13:55 Vikram Koka, > wrote: > >> +1 binding. >> >> Thank you Daniel Standish and TP for all the detailed work on this! >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 11:45 AM Jarek Pot

[Help wanted] Check whether the significant newsfragment are correctly updated

## Why Since https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/44378, we have introduced a newsfragments template to track our breaking changes. However, this template was implemented after many of our earlier breaking changes, which means that most existing news fragments do not conform to this format. By

Re: [DISCUSS] Avoid Yoda conditions in our code

+1 for this! This is how pytest doc https://docs.pytest.org/en/stable/how-to/assert.html suggests. Best, Wei > On Nov 29, 2024, at 8:28 AM, Kaxil Naik wrote: > > Same as slack, prefer it on right. Right is right 😆 > > On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 at 23:48, Hussein Awala wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Fri

Re: AIP-84 Public API Migration

🙌 > On Nov 29, 2024, at 8:29 AM, Kaxil Naik wrote: > > Awesome stuff, kudos to Pierre and everyone involved 🎉 > > On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 at 19:08, Pavankumar Gopidesu > wrote: > >> Woohoo 🙌 thank you everyone :) >> >> On Thu, Nov 28, 2024, 18:13 Vincent Beck wrote: >> >>> HUGE! >>> >>> On 2

Re: [VOTE] November 2024 PR of the Month

+1 for https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/43902 Best, Wei > On Nov 28, 2024, at 7:28 AM, Pavankumar Gopidesu > wrote: > > +1 for 41916, Great work Illumaria. > > Regards, > Pavan Kumar > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 4:36 PM kalyan reddy wrote: >> >> +1 for https://github.com/apache/airflo

Adding a significant newsfragment template to ease breaking change tracking

Hi all, We just merged a significant newsfragment template to the main branch. https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/44378 It would make updating #41641 and https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Airflow+3+breaking+changes much easier

Re: [LAZY CONSENSUS] Use Ruff as the official linter to detect Airflow 3 incompatibilities in user code

Hi folks, If anyone plans to work on any of the rules in this list https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/41641, please create an issue and leave a comment in that issue 41641 so that we can avoid duplicate efforts. I will update the issue description whenever I notice that someone has commented

Re: [Discuss] Airflow 2 to 3 migration rules

do you exactly mean by "If > everything looks good, please click the checkbox in". Do you mean if the > change listed is indeed a breaking change and should have a migration rule? I > just do not want to click on that checkbox without be 100% sure of what I am > doing :) >

Re: [Discuss] Airflow 2 to 3 migration rules

, please click the checkbox in https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/41641#issuecomment-2490445543. Thanks! Best, Wei Wei Lee 於 2024年8月21日 週三 下午11:06寫道： > Hey everyone, > > We are currently implementing some breaking changes to the main branch. > I've created this issue to keep t

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

+1 non-binding. Tested my changes Best, Wei > On Nov 3, 2024, at 4:34 PM, Elad Kalif wrote: > > Correction vote will end on November 04, 2024 08:30 AM UTC and until 3 > binding +1 votes have been received. > > On Sun, Nov 3, 2024 at 10:31 AM Elad Kalif wrote: > >> Hey all, >> >> I have just

Re: [VOTE] October 2024 PR of the Month

Wow, so many awesome PRs! My vote goes to https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/42959. This is probably not the "best" PR. As a new contributor, he persists in finishing the PR despite numerous comments and conflicts regarding this not-so-huge request. I think this is something we could encourage

Re: New committer: Karthikeyan Singaravelan (tirkarthi)

Congratulations Karthikeyan! Best, Wei Jens Scheffler 於 2024年10月30日 週三 上午5:55寫道： > Welcome to the team! > > On 29.10.24 19:40, Vikram Koka wrote: > > Congratulations Karthikeyan, well deserved! > > > > Vikram > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 12:51 PM Oliveira, Niko > > > wrote: > > > >> Con

Re: New committer: Gopal Dirisao (dirrao)

Congratulations Gopal! Best, Wei Jens Scheffler 於 2024年10月30日 週三 上午5:55寫道： > Welcome to the team! Seems we grow rapidly! > > On 29.10.24 20:35, Ryan Hatter wrote: > > Congrats! So well deserved! > > > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 2:40 PM Vikram Koka > > > wrote: > > > >> Congratulations Gopal, we

Re: New committer: Pavan Kuman Gopidesu (gopidesupavan)

Congratulations Pavan! Best, Wei Kaxil Naik 於 2024年10月30日 週三 上午6:13寫道： > Congrats Pavan > > On Tue, 29 Oct 2024 at 21:55, Jens Scheffler > wrote: > > > Welcome to the team! > > > > On 29.10.24 19:41, Vikram Koka wrote: > > > Congratulations Pavan, well deserved! > > > > > > Vikram > > > > > >

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on October 27, 2024

-1 (non-binding) for amazon: 9.1.0rc1 and fab: 1.5.0rc1. They do not work with airflow 2.10.x on dataset permissions. corresponding PRs have been sent https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/43470 https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/43469 Best, Wei > On Oct 28, 2024, at 7:18 AM, Vishnu Chilu

Re: Airflow should deprecate the term "DAG" for end users

I think we should probably just accept it as an airflow term. At least, that’s how I understood it when I first used Airflow. I feel renaming it at this stage would require considerable effort from maintainers and existing users without providing equivalent benefits. Best, Wei > On Oct 23, 202

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New PMC member: Vikram Koka

Congratulations Vikram 🎉 Best, Wei > On Oct 20, 2024, at 5:04 AM, Mehta, Shubham wrote: > > News to me that Vikram wasn't a PMC member until now. His contributions have > always been of PMC caliber. This is definitely very well deserved! > Congratulations, Vikram!!! > > Shubham > > On 202

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

+1 (non-binding), tested my changes and a few example dags Best, Wei > On Oct 11, 2024, at 5:23 AM, Jens Scheffler > wrote: > > +1 (binding) - Checked SVN, Check in Docker, Reproducible package build, > Licenses, Signatures > > On 10.10.24 13:15, Freddy Demiane wrote: >> +1 (non-binding) on g

Re: [DISCUSS] pools and deferrables

I’m wondering why do we want to remove this. The design seems to be reasonable, but yep, it might not be as helpful as mentioned. > is it useful to have it take up a slot at the first and last couple seconds of its lifecycle? methinks no. Some edge cases “might” be helpful. I guess? A deferrabl

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on September 27, 2024

+1 non-binding. Tested my changes. Best, Wei Ash Berlin-Taylor 於 2024年9月27日 週五 下午9:37寫道： > +1 binding > > On 27 September 2024 09:55:51 BST, Elad Kalif wrote: > >Hey all, > > > >I have just cut the adhoc wave Airflow Providers packages. This email is > >calling a vote on the release, which wi

Re: [VOTE] September 2024 PR of the Month

+1 for 42004 Best, Wei Mehta, Shubham 於 2024年9月26日 週四 上午11:18寫道： > +1 for 42004 > > Shubham > > On 2024-09-25, 7:00 PM, "Vishnu Chilukoori" > wrote: > > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not > click links or open attachment

Re: [LAZY CONSENSUS] "Edge" as the name for AIP-69

I like what Daniel suggested. But I guess we’ll probably need to split a few executors from existing providers for this? If that’s the case, are we going to have those executors exist in both side for some time? or is there a better for it? Best, Wei > On Sep 17, 2024, at 1:16 AM, Jens Scheffl

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.10.2 from 2.10.2rc1

Tested my changes and a few example dags. Work fine. +1 (non-binding) Best, Wei > On Sep 18, 2024, at 4:17 AM, Jens Scheffler > wrote: > > Hi, > > I tested reporoducibility, SVN, licenses and signatures. All OK. > > Also I tested the fixed I applied/contributes/merged in the patch > release

Re: [VOTE] August 2024 PR of the Month

+1 for #41390 Best, Wei > On Aug 29, 2024, at 2:32 AM, Vishnu Chilukoori > wrote: > > +1 for #41390 (Non-binding) > > > -- > Regards, > Vishnu C. > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 8:51 AM Buğra Öztürk > wrote: > >> +1 for #41390 >> >> On Wed, 28 Aug 2024, 15:10 Brent Bovenzi, >> wrote: >> >>

Re: [DISCUSS] allow_trigger_in_future setting: keep or chop?

I also lean toward allowing it, and removing the configuration sounds good. Best, Wei > On Aug 22, 2024, at 4:00 AM, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > > weak allow as well. > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 8:31 PM Oliveira, Niko > wrote: > >> I don't feel too strongly about this one (I suppose I also lean al

[Discuss] Airflow 2 to 3 migration rules

Hey everyone, We are currently implementing some breaking changes to the main branch. I've created this issue to keep track of the items that need to be included in our migration tool from version 2 to 3. I've provided two examples and will add more in the upcoming days. It would be great if we co

Re: [DISCUSS] Airflow 2.11 as bridge release

+1 Best, Wei > On Aug 19, 2024, at 9:59 PM, Pierre Jeambrun wrote: > > +1 > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 3:29 PM Jed Cunningham > wrote: > >> +1 >> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org For additional

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

Same here. 1. +1 essential/essentials 2. -1 under common Best, Wei > On Aug 19, 2024, at 9:54 PM, Bas Harenslak wrote: > > +1 for essential (saves one letter) > -1 under common (feels like that would lead to path convention confusion) > > Bas > >> On 19 Aug 2024, at 15:40, Vincent Beck wrot

Re: [DISCUSS] New provider Common.time

iders. >> When it comes to naming, I do not have a strong preference but if we are >> looking at some >> alternatives to "common", my suggestions would be to try something like: >> - "shared": this will make some sense as we plan to share these across mor

Re: [DISCUSS] New provider Common.time

+1 for moving core operators to providers. I also agree with Hussein's statement that common should only include things that are used at least twice in other providers. For this specific case, would `airflow.providers.time` probably work? Best, Wei > On Aug 15, 2024, at 3:46 AM, Hussein Awala

Re: [DISCUSS] Sensor Improvements With Tirggers

Thank you for bringing this up! I have added some comments to the document. I'm unsure if we really want or need to implement more complex logic for this. What I have in mind is simply adding helper functions to InternalSensorTrigger and continuing to use the run method in BaseTrigger. The main

Re: [VOTE] AIP-81 Enhanced Security in CLI via Integration of API

+1 binding. Best, Wei > On Aug 12, 2024, at 9:58 AM, Kaxil Naik wrote: > > +1 binding > > On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 at 19:30, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > >> +1 (binding) - there are likely some small details to work out during the >> implementation, but I think they don't impact the overall AIP. >> >>

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New PMC member: Jens Schaffler

Congrats Jens! 🎉 Best, Wei > On Aug 6, 2024, at 10:20 PM, Ash Berlin-Taylor wrote: > > Well deserved! > > On 6 August 2024 13:12:28 BST, Pankaj Singh wrote: >> Congrats Jens 🎉 >> >> On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 4:44 PM Bowrna Prabhakaran >> wrote: >> >>> Congrats Jens! >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 6, 20

Re: [VOTE] AIP-79 & AIP-84 Remove Flask AppBuilder as a Core Dependency & UI REST API

+1 (binding) for both APIs Best, Wei > On Aug 5, 2024, at 4:00 AM, Shahar Epstein wrote: > > +1 (binding) for both > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 9:20 PM Brent Bovenzi > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Jed and I prepared two AIPs to flesh out how to finish AIP-38 Modern Web >> Application for Airflow 3.0

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

+1 binding. Best, Wei > On Aug 2, 2024, at 5:06 AM, Vishnu Chilukoori > wrote: > > +1 non-binding > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 2:22 PM Ankit Chaurasia wrote: > >> +1 non-binding >> >> *Ankit Chaurasia* >> >> >> >> On Fri, 2 Aug 2024 at 01:45, Vishnu Chilukoori >> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >

Re: AWS Open Source Credits Program

Awesome! > On Jul 29, 2024, at 3:08 AM, Utkarsh Sharma > wrote: > > Sounds great! :) > > On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 4:17 PM Pierre Jeambrun > wrote: > >> Great news! >> >> On Sat 27 Jul 2024 at 01:15, Sadha Chilukoori >> wrote: >> >>> That's wonderful news. >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 1

Re: [VOTE] AIP-76: Asset Partitions

+1 (binding) Best, Wei > On Aug 2, 2024, at 9:09 AM, Kaxil Naik wrote: > > We should resolve the open comments on the AIP before we conclude the vote > though > > On Fri, 2 Aug 2024 at 02:09, Kaxil Naik wrote: > >> +1 binding >> >> On Thu, 1 Aug 2024 at 18:07, Buğra Öztürk wrote: >> >>> +

Re: [VOTE] AIP-68 Extended Plugin Interface for React Views

+1 (binding) Best, Wei > On Jul 27, 2024, at 7:23 AM, Pavankumar Gopidesu > wrote: > > +1 (non-binding). > > > Regards, > Pavan Kumar > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 7:05 PM Aritra Basu > wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> -- >> Regards, >> Aritra Basu >> >> On Fri, 26 Jul 2024, 10:32 pm Sadha

Re: More ruff style rules

+1 to not include D102, D103. +1 to enforcing E731. (I just introduced this in one of my latest PRs 🤦‍♂️ I will fix it) +1 to not-enforcing D107. I actually think we could enforce TCH003. This kind of pattern seems to be already applied to the 3rd party library. It could apply to the standard l

Re: [VOTE] AIPs 73 74 75: Data Awareness with Assets

+1 binding for all the 3 AIPs Best, Wei > On Jul 22, 2024, at 10:49 PM, Aritra Basu wrote: > > +1 non-binding > -- > Regards, > Aritra Basu > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024, 7:40 PM Jarek Potiuk wrote: > >> +1 binding >> >> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 4:05 PM Phani Kumar >> wrote: >> >>> +1 binding >

Re: [VOTE] AIP-65: Improve DAG history in UI

+1 (binding) Best, Wei > On Jul 20, 2024, at 5:18 AM, Vikram Koka wrote: > > Sorry, should have said +1 (binding) > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 2:18 PM Vikram Koka wrote: > >> +1 >> >> This is possibly the highest voted feature from the Airflow survey. >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 1:50 

Re: [VOTE] AIP-66: DAG Bundles and Parsing

+1 binding. Best, Wei > On Jul 20, 2024, at 10:27 AM, Phani Kumar > wrote: > > +1 binding > > On Sat, 20 Jul 2024, 02:50 Vikram Koka, > wrote: > >> +1 binding >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 1:43 PM Jed Cunningham >> wrote: >> >>> I’m calling for a vote on this AIP 66: >>> https://cwik

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New committers: Rom Sharon & Shahar Epstein

Congratulations! 🎉 🙌 Best regards, Wei > On Jul 15, 2024, at 9:31 PM, Abhishek Bhakat > wrote: > > Congrats Rom & Sharan 🥳 > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 1:28 PM utkarsh sharma > wrote: > >> Congratulations! 🎉🎉. >> >> Thanks, >> Utkarsh Sharma >> >> On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 6:38 PM Jarek Poti

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

+1, non-binding Best, Wei > On Jul 14, 2024, at 6:58 PM, Rahul Vats wrote: > > +1 for Weaviate provider, verified running our example DAGS. > > Regards, > Rahul Vats > 9953794332 > > > On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 at 01:44, Hussein Awala wrote: > >> +1 (binding) checked licences, checksums, signatu

  1   2   3   >