Re: [DISCUSSION] Changing catchup_by_default from True to False

+1 for the proposal, a bit late here but I do not disagree with any of the discussions made. Thanks & Regards, Amogh Desai On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 5:02 PM Tamara Fingerlin wrote: > Thank you all! > Yes, it is starting to look like a lazy consensus candidate. :) > Unless there are any objections

Re: [DISCUSSION] Changing catchup_by_default from True to False

Thank you all! Yes, it is starting to look like a lazy consensus candidate. :) Unless there are any objections today or tomorrow, I'll start that on Saturday (so Monday is in the window). And sorry about the initial confusion I should have specified that I am only talking about a config default ch

Re: [DISCUSSION] Changing catchup_by_default from True to False

+1 — coupled with the ability to do backfills in the UI now, if there is also want the old behaviour back on an ad-hoc basis it’s easy to get the missing runs created too. -ash > On 5 Mar 2025, at 22:26, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > > Looks like `[LAZY CONSENSUS]` candidate to me :) > > On Wed, Mar

Re: [DISCUSSION] Changing catchup_by_default from True to False

Looks like `[LAZY CONSENSUS]` candidate to me :) On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 11:23 PM Oliveira, Niko wrote: > +1 as well,l I've never liked the default on behaviour for this config. > > > From: Jens Scheffler > Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 12:54:05 PM > To: dev@air

Re: [DISCUSSION] Changing catchup_by_default from True to False

+1 as well,l I've never liked the default on behaviour for this config. From: Jens Scheffler Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 12:54:05 PM To: dev@airflow.apache.org Subject: RE: [EXT] [DISCUSSION] Changing catchup_by_default from True to False CAUTION: This email o

Re: [DISCUSSION] Changing catchup_by_default from True to False

+1 - I would also favor this proposal. On 05.03.25 21:25, Akash Sharma wrote: +1 We should change it from both global and DAG level. Best regards, Akash On Thu, 6 Mar, 2025, 01:01 Jed Cunningham, wrote: +1, this is one of the few configs that I change from the default immediately. --

Re: [DISCUSSION] Changing catchup_by_default from True to False

+1 We should change it from both global and DAG level. Best regards, Akash On Thu, 6 Mar, 2025, 01:01 Jed Cunningham, wrote: > +1, this is one of the few configs that I change from the default > immediately. >

Re: [DISCUSSION] Changing catchup_by_default from True to False

If we can control the behaviour globally instead of specifying it on the DAG level, I take back my concerns. Thanks for clarifying! On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 8:26 PM Jarek Potiuk wrote: > I think Michał - you might have not entirely understood / realised the > impact. It's not as bad as you describ

Re: [DISCUSSION] Changing catchup_by_default from True to False

+1, this is one of the few configs that I change from the default immediately.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Changing catchup_by_default from True to False

I think Michał - you might have not entirely understood / realised the impact. It's not as bad as you described it, I think. As I understand it - the idea here is to set "catchup_by_default" to False, but you can still keep 100% compatibility by setting it to True manually for the whole installati

Re: [DISCUSSION] Changing catchup_by_default from True to False

> I strongly disagree with the proposal of changing the default for all DAGs. This requires every user that does not specify catchup to modify their DAGs. I don't think that's accurate. Tamara's proposal is just to change the default value of the global configuration that controls this

Re: [DISCUSSION] Changing catchup_by_default from True to False

I strongly disagree with the proposal of changing the default for all DAGs. This requires every user that does not specify catchup to modify their DAGs. As pointed out in other similar threads about changes requiring DAG code changes: >I am concerned simply because it is a physical code change, an