t what Daniel said.
> IFF
> >> > we're going to change the name, I think "Workflow" works better than
> >> trying
> >> > to redefine an existing known term, but honestly I would advocate for
> >> > switching to using "Dag" as a
me little note
>> somewhere
>> > that the name comes from DAG but we've since evolved past that strict
>> > definition.
>> >
>> >
>> > - ferruzzi
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: J
"Dag" as a proper noun with some little note somewhere
> that the name comes from DAG but we've since evolved past that strict
> definition.
>
>
> - ferruzzi
>
>
>
> From: Jens Scheffler
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 2
DAG but we've since evolved past that strict
> > definition.
> >
> >
> > - ferruzzi
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Jens Scheffler
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 2:03 PM
> > To: dev@airflow.apache.org
> &
;ve since evolved past that strict definition.
- ferruzzi
From: Jens Scheffler
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 2:03 PM
To: dev@airflow.apache.org
Subject: RE: [EXT] Airflow should deprecate the term "DAG" for end users
CAUTION: This email originated from o
Wow what a discussion thread. Was reading it and...:
I am okay to clean up docs and agree to the others that we should NOT
change code interfaces.
For the marketing part I need to repeat: (Almost) Everybody touching
Airflow needs an explanaition what "DAG" means. Changing the acronym to
have ano
; >> > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 11:06 AM Bishundeo,
> > > > Rajeshwar
> > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > >>&g
Ech. I would love so much if we could correct sent email same way we can
correct messages in Slack :D
On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 7:50 PM Daniel Standish
wrote:
> damnit --- meant to say is *not* strictly speaking
>
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 10:46 AM Daniel Standish <
> daniel.stand...@astrono
damnit --- meant to say is *not* strictly speaking
On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 10:46 AM Daniel Standish <
daniel.stand...@astronomer.io> wrote:
> Yeah I also disagree with code changes here. This thread went in an
> unexpected direction since I last poked my head in :)
>
> My thought is just i
Yeah I also disagree with code changes here. This thread went in an
unexpected direction since I last poked my head in :)
My thought is just in docs I would de-emphasize the mathy part of this. We
can say a DAG is airflow's model for a collection of tasks that run,
typically on a schedule. We c
; > > the
> > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>> mathematical
> > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>> definition of DAG.
> > > > > > > >
gt;> > >>>>>> Airflow.
> > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>> __
> > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > >>>>>>&g
>> ja...@potiuk.com>> wrote:
> > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > &g
t; > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 9:46 AM Oliveira, Niko
&
> > >> > >>> si
> > > >> > >>>>> vous
> > > >> > >>>>>>> ne
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> pouvez
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>> pas confirme
t;>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>>>>>> From Guido's post:
> > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>
t; > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> Naming is hard.
> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>
gt;>>>> droiddev5...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, completely agree with above comments, dag is an
>> > >&
gt;>>> with
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> work
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> folks who've been using dags in Airflow for years now
> > >>> and are
> > >>>>>> pro
> > >>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Airflow.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> workflow, pipeline, flow are surely better terms but
> >>> will be
> >>>>> a
> >>>>>>&
change for the developer community, so we'll need a solid
>>>>> plan
>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> how to
>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce it, when we do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
;>>>>>>>>>> Python started by Guido back in 2009. We could probably
>> get
>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>> learnings
>>>>>>>>>>> from there? Who knows!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>&g
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I think we should probably just accept it as an airflow
> > > term.
> > > > > At
> > > > > > > least,
> > > > > > > > > > > that’s how I unders
> renaming
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > this stage would require considerable effort from
> > maintainers
> > > >
t; >
> > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > Wei
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Oct 23, 2024, at 8:01 AM, Kaxil Naik <
> > kaxiln...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > Airflow 4 :) -- but right now it will cause too much
> > disruption
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 at 21:27, Constance Martineau
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > consta...@astronomer.io.inva>lid>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> In my experience, when you ask those with Airflow experience
> > > what a
> > > > > > dag
; > > > being
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> series of steps or tasks with owners. The structure doesn't
> > come up.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Echo-ing others, at this point, my
gt; >> mitigations.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> One thing we can do no matter what is to de-emphasize the
> > > math
> > > > > >> nerd
> > > > > >>&
> > > >>> started working with Airflow.
> > > > >>> But, I also agree with the viewpoint of it being an established
> > > concept
> > > > >> now
> > > > >>> regardless of the origin.
> > > > >>
>>>>>> writing
> > > >>>>>>>>> "dag" / "dags" instead of writing "DAG" / "DAGs" etc. The
> > upper
> > > >>> case
> > > >>>>>>>> part
> > > >>
t;>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 9:46 AM Oliveira, Niko
> > >> mailto:oniko...@amazon.com.inva>lid
> > >>>>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> I agree with the general sentiment of: You're right Ryan, DAG isn'
t;> Best regards,
> > >>> Vikram
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 9:46 AM Oliveira, Niko
> > >> > >>>>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> I agree with the general sentiment of: You
iment of: You're right Ryan, DAG isn't
> >> great
> >>>> and I'd rather workflow, but changing it will cause much more wreckage
> >>> than
> >>>> it solves.
> >>>>
> >>>> Also agree with the idea to just move
24 at 7:27 AM Jarek Potiuk
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DAG is so embedded into what we do that it will be extremely
>>>>>>>> difficult to
>>>>>>>>>> get rid of it completely
> it solves.
> > >
> > > Also agree with the idea to just move away from defining DAG. I think
> > > we've been naturally doing that as a community for a while now anyway,
> so
> > > that feels like a natural step.
> > >
> > > Chee
move away from defining DAG. I think
> > we've been naturally doing that as a community for a while now anyway, so
> > that feels like a natural step.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Niko
> >
> > ________________
> > From: Ash Berlin-Taylor
>
__
> From: Ash Berlin-Taylor
> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2024 9:06:39 AM
> To: dev@airflow.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [EXT] Airflow should deprecate the term "DAG" for end users
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
>
nity for a while now anyway, so that feels
like a natural step.
Cheers,
Niko
From: Ash Berlin-Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2024 9:06:39 AM
To: dev@airflow.apache.org
Subject: RE: [EXT] Airflow should deprecate the term "DAG" for end users
CAUTI
the word DAG makes very less sense to someone new to
>>>>> workflow
>>>>>>> orchestration. But it does also show the nature of being acyclic.
>>>> Sure,
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> Bas mentioned, there are ways to workaround it. Stil
t. Still, in my
> >> opinion,
> >> > > there
> >> > > > is generally no need for cyclic behavior in workflow
> orchestration.
> >> > Most
> >> > > > (*if
> >> > > > not all*) cases can be in some way can be co
t; ideas.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Term DAG is misleading; it should be replaced by the more
> general
> > > > Term
> > > > > Airflow (Workflow) Graph (AFG) or Airflow (Petri) Net (AFN) (maybe
> > > > without
> > &
> > word to stick.
>> > > >
>> > > > Regards,
>> > > > Avi
>> > > >
>> > > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 12:41 PM wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Brilliant, I am on the way to become an Airflow Fan; so m
; without
> > > > a direction);
> > > > and ... these Graphs should be stored in a Graph Database.
> > > >
> > > > Every Node or Sup-Graph of an Airflow Graph (AFG) might be assigned
> to
> > an
> > > > executable (Python-, Rust
er of a library.
> > >
> > > A running Graph might have a different structure than a configuration
> > > Graph.
> > >
> > > Forget that if you think it's bullshit.
> > >
> > > Best Regards
> > >
> > > Bernd Ströhle
&g
t structure than a configuration
> > Graph.
> >
> > Forget that if you think it's bullshit.
> >
> > Best Regards
> >
> > Bernd Ströhle
> > M: +49 171 5357916
> > E: bernd.stroe...@gmail.com
> >
> >
> > -Original Mess
gt; M: +49 171 5357916
> E: bernd.stroe...@gmail.com
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Igor Kholopov
> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2024 12:02 PM
> To: dev@airflow.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Airflow should deprecate the term "DAG" for end users
>
> Even
57916
E: bernd.stroe...@gmail.com
-Original Message-
From: Igor Kholopov
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2024 12:02 PM
To: dev@airflow.apache.org
Subject: Re: Airflow should deprecate the term "DAG" for end users
Even though the term "DAG" is clearly suboptimal,
Even though the term "DAG" is clearly suboptimal, it is part of Airflow DAG
definition interface at so many levels, that any attempt to change it will
only introduce more chaos, not reduce it. The only thing that is worse than
a poorly chosen name in the code is when there are two ways to define th
Couple of thoughts:
1. The boundaries/properties of “DAG” have already faded over time, for example
there are now several ways to create cyclic graphs, e.g. using the @continuous
schedule. I imagine these properties vanishing even more in the future, so from
that perspective I support changing
I don't see a problem with the term DAG, especially when most other
platforms embrace the term wholeheartedly.
I don't see anything intimidating or confusing about it at all, changing
the term though would be fairly confusing to most users who have been using
the term for years.
On Tue, Oct 22, 20
I totally agree with doing away with the term DAG. The only problem (aside from
actually telling people—including myself—to stop using the term) is to come up
with a reasonable alternative.
I can’t recall who, but someone mentioned “workflow” is not very accurate for
Airflow. The term “definiti
Hi Ryan,
Thanks for posting. I share the exactly same observation, had a short laight
because the DAG question is always an introduction if someone joins the party.
I think a global renaming makes sense. Especially when we also rename Dataset
to Asset this is also a reasonable step. Concepts st
Everyone please sheathe your swords... at least for now.
The term "DAG" has very little meaning to Airflow users. Indeed, it has
little meaning outside of some mathematicians and software engineers for
whom the properties of a DAG actually matter. For someone new to data
engineering or workflow or
54 matches
Mail list logo
