[VOTE] Release Airflow 3.0.0 from 3.0.0rc2 & Task SDK 1.0.0 from 1.0.0rc2

Hey fellow Airflowers, I am thrilled to announce the availability of Apache Airflow 3.0.0rc2 & *Task SDK 1.0.0rc2* for testing! This email is calling for a vote on the release, which will last at least 7 days until 17th April. and until 3 binding +1 votes have been received. Consider this my (no

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 3.0.0 from 3.0.0rc2 & Task SDK 1.0.0 from 1.0.0rc2

Like last time, docker images are still building! I will email here once they are published. On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 at 22:20, Kaxil Naik wrote: > Hey fellow Airflowers, > > I am thrilled to announce the availability of Apache Airflow 3.0.0rc2 & *Task > SDK 1.0.0rc2* for testing! > > This email is c

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 3.0.0 from 3.0.0rc2 & Task SDK 1.0.0 from 1.0.0rc2

Fantastic! On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 1:16 PM Vikram Koka wrote: > Awesome! > > Thank you Kaxil and everyone who contributed to this release. > Looking forward to testing this out and responding with my vote :) > > Vikram > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 9:53 AM Kaxil Naik wrote: > > > Like last time,

[VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on April 10, 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 April 13, 2025 14:45 PM UTC and until 3 binding +1 votes have been received. Consider this my (binding) +1. Airflow Provid

[ANNOUNCE] Recording: April 2025 Airflow Monthly Town Hall

Hey All, Here is the recording from our April 2025 Airflow Town Hall! < https://youtu.be/7CAkDE81nBs?si=gRSpqoq408NMIYZD > A big thanks to our speakers Savin Goyal, Buğra Öztürk, Amogh Desai, & Rahul Gade! Highlights included: - Building Scalable ML Infrastructure w

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 3.0.0 from 3.0.0rc2 & Task SDK 1.0.0 from 1.0.0rc2

Awesome! Thank you Kaxil and everyone who contributed to this release. Looking forward to testing this out and responding with my vote :) Vikram On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 9:53 AM Kaxil Naik wrote: > Like last time, docker images are still building! I will email here once > they are published. >

[DISCUSS] Minimum versions of providers for Airflow 3

Hello, TL;DR; Do people who work on some providers think that Airflow 3 should have minimum version of those? While discussing a question about chicken-egg providers with Kaxil, I realized that we can finally have min versions of providers easily added to "apache-airflow" meta-package. Simply sp

setting up airflow on a cluster

I am looking for good documentation on setting up Apache Airflow on a cluster. For the past 6 years, I have used a managed service (GCP Composer). Currently, my current job is deploying Airflow locally on a single server, with LocalExecutor. I would like to explore setting this up on a cluster, pe

Re: [DISCUSS] Minimum versions of providers for Airflow 3

I assume this is not necessary when the constraint is already set on the provider side? For example, FAB provider has a dependency on Airflow 3 (`apache-airflow>=3.0.0` in `providers/fab/pyproject.toml`) On 2025/04/10 17:22:13 Jarek Potiuk wrote: > Hello, > > TL;DR; Do people who work on some p

Re: Au revoir Flask

Nice job! On Tue 8 Apr 2025 at 20:56, Buğra Öztürk wrote: > Amazing news Vincent! Great work! > > On Tue, 8 Apr 2025, 20:52 Ferruzzi, Dennis, > wrote: > > > Great work, all. > > > > > Yay! FABulous milestone! > > > > I believe you mean FAB-u-less? :P > > > > > > - ferruzzi > > > > > > ___

Re: [DISCUSS] Minimum versions of providers for Airflow 3

Accidentally It turned out - with today's investigation of why RC images are not building that it is VERY needed. It seems that `pip` resolution works currently with our meta-package in a very bad way. If in our pyproject.toml we have just "amazon' = "apache-airflow-providers-amazon", "google" = "

Re: [DISCUSS] Minimum versions of providers for Airflow 3

There absolutely is a downside to the users — “forcing" users to upgrade providers along with Airflow version makes upgrades a much more daunting experience. > On 10 Apr 2025, at 21:31, Maciej Obuchowski wrote: > > For OpenLineage we'd definitely like something like this. > IMO there is no dow

Re: [DISCUSS] Minimum versions of providers for Airflow 3

For OpenLineage we'd definitely like something like this. IMO there is no downside to restricting the providers to the latest released version. We could go with the chicken-egg for the next release - that would add at least one useful feature authored by Kacper Muda - https://github.com/apache/airf

Re: Au revoir Flask

Amazing news Vincent! Great work! On Tue, 8 Apr 2025, 20:52 Ferruzzi, Dennis, wrote: > Great work, all. > > > Yay! FABulous milestone! > > I believe you mean FAB-u-less? :P > > > - ferruzzi > > > > From: Abhishek Bhakat > Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 10:54 PM >

Re: [DISCUSS] Minimum versions of providers for Airflow 3

Actually what I see when I attempted to do it - is that even if we introduce it - it is not going to be a hard requirement. It is just a soft limit when installing full apache-airflow[with extras]. It will be more of a default behaviour to limit the providers when extras are used but will be easy

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 3.0.0 from 3.0.0rc2 & Task SDK 1.0.0 from 1.0.0rc2

Most of the docker images for rc2 are now published on docker hub: Apache/airflow:slim-3.0.0rc2-python3.10 apache/airflow:slim-3.0.0rc2-python3.11 apache/airflow:slim-3.0.0rc2-python3.12 apache/airflow:3.0.0rc2-python3.10 apache/airflow:3.0.0rc2-python3.11 apache/airflow:3.0.0rc2-python3.12 The 3

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 3.0.0 from 3.0.0rc2 & Task SDK 1.0.0 from 1.0.0rc2

Very cool. Thanks for working through this, Ash! On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 2:41 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor wrote: > Most of the docker images for rc2 are now published on docker hub: > > Apache/airflow:slim-3.0.0rc2-python3.10 > apache/airflow:slim-3.0.0rc2-python3.11 > apache/airflow:slim-3.0.0rc2-pyth

[RESULT][VOTE] Airflow Providers - April 06, 2025

Hello, Apache Airflow Providers prepared on April 06, 2025 have been accepted. fab and common.messaging providers are excluded from this wave thus not counting votes on it. 3 "+1" binding votes received: - Elad Kalif - Jens Scheffler - Jarek Potiuk 1 "+1" non-binding votes received: - Pankaj Kot