Amazing!
On 2025/02/28 09:07:49 Aritra Basu wrote:
> Great job all! Love seeing 3.0 taking shape!
> --
> Regards,
> Aritra Basu
>
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2025, 2:01 pm Jarek Potiuk, wrote:
>
> > Awesome!
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 7:47 AM Amogh Desai
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you Jed for gettin
I personally have no problem with accepting it. I don't see big issue with
adding one more sql operator - we already have quite "specialized"
operators there - and the whole purpose of providers is to allow the users
who are not very proficient in writing Python code to create their DAGs
from "pred
*8 minutes and 12 hours ofc :D
On Sat, Mar 1, 2025 at 8:08 AM Shahar Epstein wrote:
> 8 minutes late vote for #46942, and kudos for #46939 :)
> In both cases - great job Brent for leading the UI efforts!
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 3:00 AM Briana Okyere
> wrote:
>
>> Hey All,
>>
>> It’s once a
+1 to option 1 as well.
- Avi
On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 6:32 PM Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> I very much like Option 1 only
>
> Especially if we can generate a python client that can easily "hide" the
> necessary auth workflow and extend it by different mechanisms easily. I
> think the fact that the JWT
Thanks for starting this discussion, Vincent!
I'm in favour of Option 1 as well. While I acknowledge the drawbacks, I
believe they can be mitigated over time by allowing more flexibility in
authentication managers, similar to what FAB is trying to achieve. If I
recall correctly, there were discuss
