+1 (non binding) on Google Providers Package.
On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 7:44 AM Elad Kalif wrote:
> provider openlineage is excluded from this wave due to bugs discovered.
> please continue the vote excluding this provider
>
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 5:27 PM Vincent Beck wrote:
>
> > +1 non bindi
+1
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 at 06:40, Utkarsh Sharma
wrote:
> +1 non binding
>
> Thanks,
> Utkarsh Sharma
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 10:58 AM Elad Kalif wrote:
>
> > + 1
> > but I think we should clarify the mental model of the 2.11 release.
> >
> > I wouldn't say it will have no features. If there
> Hussein I believe the intent is that the provider comes as one unit with
Airflow (it will be part of the pre-installed providers like: sqlite, HTTP,
...) so in that spirit is essential.
What about installing Airflow 3 by default without any provider (minimal
version), and adding the current defa
> IMHO this vote is about a code change
Then we will consider PMCs -1 as veto which disqualifies the specific name.
Looks like standard is the leading option which got enough +1 and no
vetos but lets see how it proceeds till vote time is closed.
On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 2:11 PM Hussein Awala wrot
-1 on common as well, +1 to standard/essentials (non-binding)
--
Regards,
Aritra Basu
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024, 5:03 pm Elad Kalif, wrote:
> > IMHO this vote is about a code change
>
> Then we will consider PMCs -1 as veto which disqualifies the specific name.
> Looks like standard is the leading opt
Hi all,
I'm wondering if all the appropriate information regarding the OTEL
provider for Airflow has been disclosed, and the community has seen
the required information for it to start the voting process.
I would like to restart the voting process for OTEL providers for airflow
mentioned in previo
+1 core
The implementation of certain operators and sensors, such as
TriggerDagRunOperator, ExternalTaskSensor, relies on the core module in a
way, so it makes sense to have the apache-airflow-providers-core for them.
We may keep other operators such as python, bash here.
+1 (common.time)
There ar
That looks quite good to me because as per the below quote from you:
> Assuming that we release Airflow 3.0.0 in March 2025, if we follow this
rule, we will be able to drop Airflow 2 support in providers in March 2026
- so we give about a year to Airflow 2 users to migrate to Airflow 3 - if
they w
Thanks for the reply, good to have your ongoing support.
@Ferruzzi, Dennis Please help in getting them
onboarded if needed.
Thanks & Regards,
Amogh Desai
On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 11:34 AM Chinthanippu, Satish
wrote:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/wnt3pxt3xxgw3fw4vdscd2wkfl13829z
>
> Hi Tea
I like the idea of having a trigger rule of `never`. I have also come
across scenarios
while migrating some example_dags to system tests that don't work right out
of docs
(intentional too, it should be good to run by setting up external systems)
I guess if we can have the new trigger rule and by d
+1 non binding
Ran some example dags for
https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-providers-cncf-kubernetes/8.4.0rc1/
and
https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-providers-apache-hive/8.2.0rc1/.
The results look fine.
Thanks & Regards,
Amogh Desai
On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 1:34 PM Freddy Demiane
+1 for this idea but I concur with Elad's thought here
Thanks & Regards,
Amogh Desai
On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 1:56 PM Ephraim Anierobi
wrote:
> +1
>
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 at 06:40, Utkarsh Sharma
> wrote:
>
> > +1 non binding
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Utkarsh Sharma
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 10
+1 non-binding. Verified below providers with our example DAGS
1. https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-providers-pgvector/1.3.0rc1/
2. https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-providers-pinecone/2.1.0rc1/
3. https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-providers-weaviate/2.1.0rc1/
4. http
1. Provider name
+1 for standard, core
+0.5 for essential/s - it gives me a sense that it is mandatory
-1 for common, shared, builtin, primary
2. -1 for placing under common
Thanks & Regards,
Amogh Desai
On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 2:10 AM Pankaj Singh
wrote:
> +1 core
> The implementation of cer
14 matches
Mail list logo
