Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal to enhance the PR template

Hi Amogh, Great idea! I agree with adding a checkbox for public interface changes in the PR template. Additionally, I suggest we add a brief section where contributors can note any potential side effects or impacts if known. This extra step could help reviewers catch issues early. Additionally, t

Re: [DISCUSS] New Provider for Gremlin

Without deep looking at the code I love the idea - it's very similar to what we have for common.sql and common.io - and soon common.messaging - I also - long time ago - suggested common.dataframe that someone could submit using Apache Ibis: https://lists.apache.org/thread/qx3yh6h0l6jb0kh3fz9q95b3x5

[VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on February 21, 2025

Hey all, I have just cut the new wave Airflow Providers packages. This email is calling a vote on the release, which will last for 72 hours - which means that it will end on February 24, 2025 17:40 PM UTC and until 3 binding +1 votes have been received. Consider this my (binding) +1. Airflow Pro

[DISCUSS] New Provider for Gremlin

Hi Everyone, I’ve created a draft PR (https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/46977) to introduce and discuss a new provider for using Gremlin—the graph traversal language of Apache TinkerPop (more details here: https://tinkerpop.apache.org/gremlin.html). Gremlin is supported by various graph datab

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on February 21, 2025

+1 (binding) - Checked SVN, Check in Docker, Reproducible package build, Licenses, Signatures Note that reproducibility was failing as of the new flit release... Metadata-Version changed in PKG-INFO As my changes were just removal of deprecations did not make any functional regression checks On

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on February 21, 2025

+1 (non-binding) Ran the AWS system tests against the release candidate and all tests passed (results can be seen at [1]). This testing includes the change I have listed in the status of testing GH issue. Cheers, Niko [1] https://aws-mwaa.github.io/#/open-source/system-tests/version/2d267ddca

Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal to enhance the PR template

It feels more like a failure of CI / testing than a failure of PR description. Is an author supposed to exercise all APIs for every "public interface" change? On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 8:52 AM Ankit Chaurasia wrote: > Hi Amogh, > > Great idea! I agree with adding a checkbox for public interface c

[Meeting Notes] Airflow 3.0 dev call - 20 Feb 2025

Hey everyone, I updated our meeting notes document in the Airflow wiki to capture the notes from our dev call yesterday. The link for those notes is here Thank you all for the amaz