Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Airflow Python Client 2.10.0 from 2.10.0rc1

Hey fellow Airflowers, We encountered issues during the reproducibility testing of the package, which led us to cancel the vote for RC1. I will be creating RC2 shortly. Thanks, Utkarsh Sharma On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 10:23 PM Utkarsh Sharma < utkarsh.sha...@astronomer.io> wrote: > Hey fellow Ai

[VOTE] Release Apache Airflow Python Client 2.10.0 from 2.10.0rc2

Hey fellow Airflowers, I have cut the first release candidate for the Apache Airflow Python Client 2.10.0. This email is calling for a vote on the release, which will last for 72 hours. Consider this my (non-binding) +1. As I’m not a member of the PMC, Ephraim signed the distribution. Airflow Cli

[DISCUSS] Name for the Executor of AIP-69

Hi Airflow-Devs, AIP-69 has come as MVP to the front-door of the repo in form of 3 PRs. But as in the Voting there has been a bit of discussion about how we call that "baby" I'd like to have a wrap-up about the name and see what the majority is for. The AIP-69 defined the implementation as "Rem

Re: [DISCUSS] Name for the Executor of AIP-69

I prefer distributed - as Remote executor is already a well-established term. But this is -0.5 on "remote" - if others think it's ok, I am fine. On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 3:33 PM Scheffler Jens (XC-AS/EAE-ADA-T) wrote: > Hi Airflow-Devs, > > AIP-69 has come as MVP to the front-door of the repo in

Re: [DISCUSS] Name for the Executor of AIP-69

Distributed makes more sense to me. +1 binding on this one. Remote executor is too broad to me On 2024/08/27 14:43:33 Jarek Potiuk wrote: > I prefer distributed - as Remote executor is already a well-established > term. But this is -0.5 on "remote" - if others think it's ok, I am fine. > > On Tu

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Airflow Python Client 2.10.0 from 2.10.0rc2

Sorry, somehoe my email client did not deliver the RC2 email. Therefore responding to RC1 email and adjusted title... I hope it ends-up in the right thread... Tested reproducibility, svn, checksums, made tests from dist in pypy. +1 binding all good from my side Sent from Outlook for iOS

Re: [DISCUSS] Name for the Executor of AIP-69

As you'd expect Jens I also vote +1 for distributed :) Remote as it means today is not only in our docs but in our previous summit talks, town halls, Github Issues/Discussions, Slack threads, etc. It's a term we've used as a community for years. So we should not change all that under the feet o

Re: [DISCUSS] Name for the Executor of AIP-69

Personally I don't mind remote executor. We need to keep in mind that this is not just naming the executor but the provider and all the other related objects. E.g. in #41729 you have these objects from airflow.providers.remote.models.remote_job import RemoteJob > from airflow.providers.r

Re: [DISCUSS] Name for the Executor of AIP-69

If we're looking for alternatives, does the word "agent" work? On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 8:41 AM Daniel Standish < daniel.stand...@astronomer.io> wrote: > Personally I don't mind remote executor. We need to keep in mind that > this is not just naming the executor but the provider and all the other

Re: [DISCUSS] Name for the Executor of AIP-69

I like agent too On 27 August 2024 16:44:40 BST, Daniel Standish wrote: >If we're looking for alternatives, does the word "agent" work? > >On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 8:41 AM Daniel Standish < >daniel.stand...@astronomer.io> wrote: > >> Personally I don't mind remote executor. We need to keep in m

Re: [DISCUSS] Name for the Executor of AIP-69

agent is fine. On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 6:27 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor wrote: > I like agent too > > On 27 August 2024 16:44:40 BST, Daniel Standish > wrote: > >If we're looking for alternatives, does the word "agent" work? > > > >On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 8:41 AM Daniel Standish < > >daniel.stand...@a

Re: [DISCUSS] Name for the Executor of AIP-69

I dislike agent. -0.8 binding from me 😀 Agent sounds like another function, as a term does not have anything in relation to „worker/executor“. Agent as a term tells me the thing is very independent and runs on higher level targets. But the remote/distributed worker will just do what the schedul

Re: [DISCUSS] Name for the Executor of AIP-69

What about federated? Bas > On 27 Aug 2024, at 21:55, Scheffler Jens (XC-AS/EAE-ADA-T) > wrote: > > I dislike agent. -0.8 binding from me 😀 > > Agent sounds like another function, as a term does not have anything in > relation to „worker/executor“. Agent as a term tells me the thing is very

Re: [DISCUSS] Name for the Executor of AIP-69

Control-M at least uses this term > The Agent installation installs Control-M/Agent. Additional Agents enable you > to run jobs on multiple computers. This enhances performance and creates > greater lo

[VOTE] August 2024 PR of the Month

Hey All, It’s once again time to vote for the PR of the Month! With the help of the `get_important_pr_candidates` script in dev/stats, we've identified the following candidates: PR #41039: Send context using in venv operator < https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/41039> PR #41554: feat(provid

Re: [VOTE] August 2024 PR of the Month

+1 binding for 41390 - subdags gone is a great step forward! Sent from Outlook for iOS From: Briana Okyere Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 10:40:07 PM To: dev@airflow.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] August 2024 PR of the Month Hey All, It’s onc

Re: [DISCUSS] Name for the Executor of AIP-69

Hah, the naming problem! First, regarding the term "Agent" - while it's a common and fitting term in monitoring solutions (e.g., OpenTelemetry's agent collector), I think it's more suitable as a replacement for "worker" rather than for naming the executor. Re: Agent - I like this term and it is