Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on May 24, 2023

+1 (non-binding) Test all the providers with example DAGs > On May 24, 2023, at 3:46 PM, Elad Kalif wrote: > > Hey all,I have just cut ad hoc 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 May 27, 20

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New committer: Pankaj Singh

Congrats Pankaj! 🎉 > On Jun 13, 2023, at 8:30 AM, Pankaj Koti > wrote: > > Many congratulations, Pankaj!! 🥳 > > On Tue, 13 Jun 2023, 05:38 Vikram Koka, > wrote: > >> Awesome! Congratulations Pankaj Singh! >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 3:37 PM Oliveira, Niko >> >> wrote: >> >>> Woo! Co

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Calling for new collaborators

Hi Jarek, I would be delighted to participate! My GitHub ID is Lee-W <https://github.com/Lee-W/> Best regards, Wei Lee > On Jun 14, 2023, at 5:38 PM, Akash Sharma <2akash111...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Jerek, > > Would love to be considered for it. > > G

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on June 20, 2023

+1 (non-binding), tested with our example DAGs without encountering issues Best, Wei > On Jun 20, 2023, at 9:25 PM, Elad Kalif wrote: > > Hey all,I have just cut RC1 wave Airflow Providers packages. This > email is calling a vote on the release,which will last for 72 hours - > which means that

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New committers: Vincent Beck, Phani Kumar, Maciej Obuchowski

Congrats!!! Best, Wei > On Jun 28, 2023, at 2:26 PM, Pankaj Singh wrote: > > Congratulations! > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 11:53 AM Amogh Desai > wrote: > >> Wow! Congrats!! >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 28, 2023, 11:48 Pankaj Koti > .invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> Amazing news at the start of the d

Re: [VOTE] June 2023 PR of the Month

+1 for #31123 🙂 > On Jun 29, 2023, at 11:14 PM, Phani Kumar > wrote: > > +1 for #31123 > > On Thu, 29 Jun 2023, 20:28 Kaxil Naik, wrote: > >> +1 for #31123 👏 >> >> On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 at 14:33, Pankaj Koti > .invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> Yes, +1 also from me for #31123. >>> Thank you for the

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New committer: Dennis Ferruzzi

Congratulations :) Best, Wei > On Jul 5, 2023, at 2:51 AM, utkarsh sharma wrote: > > Congratulations!! :) > > On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 at 11:38 PM, Pankaj Singh > wrote: > >> congratulations! >> >> On Tue, Jul 4, 2023 at 11:34 PM Ferruzzi, Dennis >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks everyone! >>> conn

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on July 06, 2023

+1 (non binding) Best, Wei > On Jul 7, 2023, at 9:32 PM, Phani Kumar > wrote: > > +1 non binding > > On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 6:43 PM Vincent Beck wrote: > >> +1 (non binding) >> >> I tested the amazon provider package by running my testing dags >> >> On 2023/07/07 12:48:07 Pankaj Koti wrot

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on July 09, 2023

+1 (non-binding) Tested without example amazon DAGs without encountering issues. Best, Wei > On Jul 10, 2023, at 3:13 PM, Pankaj Koti > wrote: > > +1 (non-binding) > > Our Amazon example DAGs ran fine with this RC. > > Regards, > > > > Pankaj Koti > > *Senior Software Engineer, *OSS En

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on July 12, 2023

+1 (non-binding) I've tested the following providers with our example DAGs without encountering errors. apache-airflow-providers-amazon apache-airflow-providers-cncf-kubernetes apache-airflow-providers-google apache-airflow-providers-http apache-airflow-providers-microsoft-azure apache-airflow-p

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on July 17, 2023

+1 (non-binding) Best, Wei > On Jul 21, 2023, at 1:41 AM, Ephraim Anierobi > wrote: > > +1 (binding) > > On 2023/07/17 05:45:26 Elad Kalif wrote: >> Hey all, >> >> >> I have just cut the Elasticsearch RC3 Airflow Provider package. This email >> is calling a vote on the release, >> >> which

Re: Config as default value for deferrable may have surprising effect ?

Hi, Avoiding unexpected behavior is one of the reasons we set the default default_deferrable to False. We want to minimize the impact on the users. For those who didn't use this feature, everything should work as it used to. Those who opt to enable it should know it might change the behavior of

Re: Config as default value for deferrable may have surprising effect ?

> That would be a breaking change compared to what has been done so far. I > think all operators have been implemented with something like > if deferrable: > defer() > elif wait: > poll() > It would only be breaking for operators that have wait=False by default > though, but it might be

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New PMC member: Hussein Awala

Congratulations! 🎉🎉🎉 Best, Wei > On Jul 30, 2023, at 1:39 AM, Pankaj Koti > wrote: > > Many congratulations, Hussein 🎉 🎉 🎉 > > On Sat, 29 Jul 2023, 23:06 Amogh Desai, wrote: > >> Awesome news! Good going, Hussein! >> >> Congratulations 🎉 >> >> Thanks, >> Amogh Desai >> >> On Sat, Jul 29

Re: [VOTE] The daskexecutor, cncf.provider, celery providers in 2.7.0. as regular not-preinstalled providers

[a] the providers to be regular ones, not preinstalled (non-binding) Best, Wei > On Jul 30, 2023, at 4:47 AM, Avi > wrote: > > option a (non-binding) > > -- > Sent from Canary (https://canarymail.io) > >> On Saturday, Jul 29, 2023 at 20:41, Pierre Jeambrun > (mailto:pierrejb...@gmail.com)>

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on July 29, 2023

+1 (non-binding) We have tested the following providers with our example DAGS without encountering an issue. apache-airflow-providers-amazon apache-airflow-providers-apache-hive apache-airflow-providers-cncf-kubernetes apache-airflow-providers-databricks apache-airflow-providers-google apache-ai

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on August 05, 2023

-1 (non-binding) As suggested by Rahul, a breaking change has been introduced (I would call a constant name change a breaking change if I were the release manager). Thanks for Rahul’s finding and Jarek’s suggestion. I tried to create a small PR to mitigate this. I hope it helps. https://github

Re: [DISCUSS] Breaking upgrades as (not?) breaking SemVer promise

I hope I'm not too late to join the discussion. From what I understand, I'd be OK to call this upgrade script change a non-breaking change as it doesn't change the public API. But again, different release managers might have other discretion here. For the long term, I might vote for * Eithe

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on August 08, 2023

-1 (non-binding) on apache-airflow-providers-google==10.6.0rc2 In https://github.com/apache/airflow/commit/e10aa6ae6ad#diff-529929b4ca60ce73b8da0f45d8a5c43c2d4e391b913fe78b39892899f812951eR2730, a new property "sql" is introduced. We’re assigning some value to this sql attribute which causes a

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on August 08, 2023

HI, May I know whether we're going to make a RC3 and include this fix https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/33218? Thanks! Best, Wei > On Aug 9, 2023, at 6:59 AM, Hussein Awala wrote: > > +1 (binding) I checked the signatures, the checksums and the source code. > And I tested my change. All

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on August 09, 2023

+1 (non-binding) Tested with our example DAGs without encountering issues in the Google provider. Best, Wei On Aug 9, 2023, at 8:50 PM, Elad Kalif wrote: > > Hey all, > > > I have just cut *RC3* Airflow Providers packages. This email is calling a > vote on the release, > > which will last

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on August 11, 2023

+1 (non-binding) Tested with our example DAGs with the following providers without encountering issues apache-airflow-providers-amazon==8.5.1rc1 apache-airflow-providers-cncf-kubernetes==7.4.2rc1 apache-airflow-providers-databricks==4.3.3rc1 apache-airflow-providers-snowflake==4.

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.7.0 from 2.7.0rc1

+1 (non-binding) Best, Wei > On Aug 12, 2023, at 10:57 AM, Phani Kumar > wrote: > > +1 non-binding > > On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 3:05 AM Hussein Awala wrote: > >> +1 (binding) I checked the signatures, the checksums, the licences and the >> source code.All looks good. >> I ran some testing da

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.7.0 from 2.7.0rc2

+1 (non-binding) Best, Wei > On Aug 17, 2023, at 4:50 AM, Brent Bovenzi > wrote: > > +1 (binding) > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 4:46 PM Pierre Jeambrun > wrote: > >> +1 (binding) Checksum, signatures, licences and release artifacts look good >> to me. Ran a few tests, working as expected. >>

Re: [DISCUSS] Drop MsSQL as supported backend

+1 (non binding) I agree with this direction. It would be helpful to guide users on their next steps as Jarek suggested. Best, Wei > On Aug 18, 2023, at 9:29 PM, Michał Modras > wrote: > > +1 - I strongly agree with the direction too. > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 2:31 PM Jarek Potiuk wrote:

Re: [VOTE] Drop MsSQL as supported backend

+1 (non-binding) Best, Wei > On Aug 28, 2023, at 3:30 PM, Pankaj Koti > wrote: > > +1 (non-binding) > > On Mon, 28 Aug 2023, 12:59 Hussein Awala, wrote: > >> +1 binding >> >> On Mon 28 Aug 2023 at 08:36, Jarek Potiuk wrote: >> >>> +1 from me >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 8:30 AM Elad

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on August 26, 2023

+1 (non binding) Best, Wei > On Aug 29, 2023, at 3:21 AM, Aritra Basu wrote: > > +1 (non binding) > Lgtm. Tested out a few simple dags. > > -- > Regards, > Aritra Basu > > On Mon, Aug 28, 2023, 11:07 PM Phani Kumar > wrote: > >> +1 non binding. >> >> On Mon, 28 Aug 2023, 23:04 Ankit Chaura

Re: [VOTE] August 2023 PR of the Month

+1 to #30259 Best, Wei > On Aug 30, 2023, at 12:59 AM, Frank Cash wrote: > > +1 to #30259. > > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 1:27 AM Amogh Desai > wrote: > >> Wasn't aware of things done by @eumiro >> >> Awesome. My vote goes to https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/30259 >> >> Thanks & Rega

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on August 29, 2023

+1 non-binding Tested with #33716 , #33467 , #33433 , #33493 , #33469

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.7.1 from 2.7.1rc2

+1 (non-binding) Checked #33403 , #33401 , #33196 , #33424 . Best, Wei > On Sep 5, 2023, at 12:09 PM, Pankaj

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on September 08, 2023

+1 (non-binding) 1. Tested with #33825 , #33822 , #34098 2. astronomer-providers example DAGs ran fine, as Pankaj mentioned. It would be nice if we could in

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on September 12, 2023

+1 (non-binding) Tested some example dags with DBT without encountering the issue. Best, Wei > On Sep 13, 2023, at 9:49 PM, Phani Kumar > wrote: > > +1 non binding > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 5:03 PM Amogh Desai > wrote: > >> +1 non binding >> >> Tested with a few dags from my test set. N

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on September 14, 2023

+1 (non-binding) Tested with the following on our example DAGs without encountering errors. * apache-airflow-providers-amazon==8.7.1rc1 * apache-airflow-providers-google==10.9.0rc1 * apache-airflow-providers-cncf-kubernetes==7.6.0rc1 Best, Wei > On Sep 15, 2023, at 1:47 AM, Frank Cash wrote:

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Pankaj Koti and Amogh Desai as committers

Congratulations Pankaj and Amogh! Best, Wei > On Sep 19, 2023, at 10:26 PM, utkarsh sharma wrote: > > Congratulations @Pankaj and @Amogh :) > > On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 at 7:47 PM, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > >> Hello Everyone: >> >> I am happy to announce that the Project Management Committee (PMC) f

Re: [VOTE] September 2023 PR of the Month

+1 to #28900. Best, Wei > On Sep 30, 2023, at 5:13 AM, Mehta, Shubham wrote: > > + 1 to #28900. That required a lot of perseverance > > Shubham > > On 2023-09-29, 2:09 PM, "Briana Okyere" > LID> wrote:

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.7.2 from 2.7.2rc1

+1 (non-binding) Best, Wei > On Oct 12, 2023, at 10:47 AM, Phani Kumar > wrote: > > +1 non-binding > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 7:49 AM Rahul Vats wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> Regards, >> Rahul Vats >> 9953794332 >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 at 05:14, Jed Cunningham >> wrote: >> >

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on October 13, 2023

+1 (non-binding) Tested with our examples DAGs with only one expected fail due to Azure provider breaking change. Best Wei > On Oct 14, 2023, at 3:57 AM, Elad Kalif wrote: > > Hey all, > > I have just cut the new wave Airflow Providers packages. This email is > calling a vote on the release,

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on October 18, 2023

+1 non-binding Tested apache-airflow-providers-amazon==8.9.0rc1 and apache-airflow-providers-google==10.10.1rc1. Both of them work as expected. Best, Wei > On Oct 19, 2023, at 2:24 PM, Amogh Desai wrote: > > +1 non binding > > Tested few test DAGs with cncf mostly. > > Thanks, > Amogh > >

Re: [VOTE] Add providers for Pinecone, OpenAI & Cohere to enable first-class LLMOps

+1 (non-binding) Best, Wei On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 10:44 PM Vincent Beck wrote: > +1 binding > > On 2023/10/25 13:32:49 Pierre Jeambrun wrote: > > +1 (binding) > > > > Le mer. 25 oct. 2023 à 13:29, Pankaj Singh a > > écrit : > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 4:52 PM A

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing Qubole provider (and adding removal process)

+1 Best, Wei > On Oct 30, 2023, at 5:36 AM, Utkarsh Sharma > wrote: > > +1 for the implementing the process, have little clue about the provider. :) > > Thanks, > Utkarsh Sharma > > On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 10:59 PM Pierre Jeambrun > wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> Le ven. 27 oct. 2023 à 19:16, Ari

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on October 28, 2023

+1 (non-binding) Best, Wei > On Oct 31, 2023, at 2:16 AM, Hussein Awala wrote: > > +1 (binding): Checked licences, signatures, checksums, source codes, and > ran some testing dags. All looks good. > > > On Sat 28 Oct 2023 at 19:55, Elad Kalif wrote: > >> Hey all, >> >> I have just cut the

Re: [VOTE] October 2023 PR of the Month

+1 to 34729 from me as well. 👍 Best, Wei > On Nov 1, 2023, at 4:02 AM, Aritra Basu wrote: > > +1 to 34729 from me as well. Great work on that > > -- > Regards, > Aritra Basu > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 11:27 PM Amogh Desai wrote: > >> +1 for 34729 from me. >> >> Good work 👍 >> >> On Tue, Oc

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.7.3 from 2.7.3rc1

+1 (non-binding) Best, Wei > On Nov 6, 2023, at 12:17 PM, Aritra Basu wrote: > > +1 (non-binding) > > -- > Regards, > Aritra Basu > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2023, 9:30 AM Rahul Vats wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> Regards, >> Rahul Vats >> 9953794332 >> >> >> On Sun, 5 Nov 2023 at 10:53, Pank

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New committer: Jens Scheffler

Congratulations Jens!! Best, Wei > On Nov 8, 2023, at 5:20 AM, Oliveira, Niko > wrote: > > Congrats Jens!! > > > From: Briana Okyere > Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 1:00:35 PM > To: dev@airflow.apache.org > Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [COURRIEL EXTERNE] [ANNOUN

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on November 08, 2023

+1, non binding Tested with our example DAGs and azure changes. Best, Wei > On Nov 9, 2023, at 12:58 PM, Amogh Desai wrote: > > +1 non binding. > > Tested out some test DAGs, mostly around CNCF provider: > https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-providers-cncf-kubernetes/7.9.0rc1/, > no regre

Re: [PrOPOSAL] Change default docker image to point to "latest supported"

Agreed, as long as users can still use different versions through tags, there are no drawbacks or incompatibilities with this great idea! Best, Wei > On Nov 17, 2023, at 1:39 PM, Aritra Basu wrote: > > Agreed, moving to latest by default sounds like a fine idea. I don't see > any drawbacks to

Re: [DISCUSS] Suspend (Remove?) Daskexecutor provider

+1 for removal if there is no active maintainer on this one Best, Wei > On Nov 17, 2023, at 6:00 PM, Andrey Anshin wrote: > > +1 for suspend and after a while remove > > There is a small chance that things would improve after we suspended this > provider. > > However we do not have a lot of s

Re: [DISCUSS] Move FAB auth manager to a new provider

+1 for this moving it. It gives us more flexibility on both the core and provider sides. Best, Wei > On Nov 17, 2023, at 9:15 AM, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > > I am all for it. As we saw already and we see it more in the future - > moving code of out of Airflow core to provider and having separate >

Re: [DISCUSS] Suspend/Remove Apache Scoop provider

+1 > On Nov 23, 2023, at 11:30 PM, Phani Kumar > wrote: > > +1 > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 8:24 PM Vincent Beck wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On 2023/11/23 13:08:09 Jarek Potiuk wrote: >>> +1 >>> >>> czw., 23 lis 2023, 12:39 użytkownik Aritra Basu < >> aritrabasu1...@gmail.com> >>> napisał: >>> >>

Re: [DISCUSS] Suspend/Remove Plexus provider

+1 for removing it. Best, Wei > On Nov 24, 2023, at 7:17 AM, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > > Let's remove it. > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 11:52 PM Andrey Anshin > wrote: > >> Greetings everyone! >> >> Not much time has passed since the last discussion about suspension/removal >> providers 🤣 >> >>

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on November 24, 2023

+1 (non-binding) We tested it with our example DAGs with "apache-airflow-providers-amazon", "apache-airflow-providers-cncf-kubernetes", "apache-airflow-providers-databricks", "apache-airflow-providers-dbt-cloud", "apache-airflow-providers-google", "apache-airflow-providers-cncf-kubernetes", "a

Re: [VOTE] November PR of the Month

+ 1 for 32646 Best, Wei > On Nov 28, 2023, at 5:35 AM, utkarsh sharma wrote: > > +1 for 32646, great work. > > Thanks, > Utkarsh Sharma > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 2:50 AM Collin McNulty > wrote: > >> +1 to 32646. Been wanting this for a long time! >> >> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 11:50 AM Br

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New committer: Utkarsh Sharma

Congratulations, Utkarsh! Best, Wei > On Dec 5, 2023, at 5:58 AM, Oliveira, Niko > wrote: > > Congrats! Very well deserved! > > > From: Pankaj Koti > Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 11:28:41 AM > To: dev@airflow.apache.org > Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [COURRIEL E

Re: [DISCUSS] Capturing Architectural decisions (ADRS?)

I like this idea! It would make it easier to follow why these decisions were made. But if we are to adopt this idea, we might need to decide which decisions we want to include in these ADRs. Or maybe we could include a checkbox on the PR template for the committers to decide whether to ask the a

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on December 08, 2023

+1 (none-binding) for providers other than Google and Docker. Best, Wei > On Dec 11, 2023, at 3:07 PM, Rahul Vats wrote: > > +1 (non-binding) except for Google, Docker and Databricks. > > Regards, > Rahul Vats > 9953794332 > > > On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 12:21, Pankaj Koti > wrote: > >> +1 (n

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on December 12, 2023

-1 (non-binding) for the google and databricks providers. Sent https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/36202 for fixing the google issue Best, Wei Jarek Potiuk 於 2023年12月13日 週三 下午6:34寫道： > Google and databricks will get RC3 (PRs to fix them are already created). > I'd still love to have +1 PMC v

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.8.0 from 2.8.0rc4

+1 (non-binding) Best, Wei > On Dec 18, 2023, at 6:15 PM, Pankaj Koti wrote: > > +1 (non-binding) > > On 2023/12/18 10:00:50 Rahul Vats wrote: >> +1 (non-binding). I re-verified tests with rc4. >> >> - Verified that running our example DAGs did not reveal any regressions. >> - Verified th

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow Python Client 2.8.0 from 2.8.0rc1

+1 (non-binding) Best, Wei > On Dec 19, 2023, at 8:20 PM, utkarsh sharma wrote: > > +1 non binding > > On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 at 5:23 PM, Amogh Desai > wrote: > >> +1 non binding >> >> Installed the RC bits and ran example DAGs. >> >> >> >> On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 at 5:22 PM, Phani Kumar >> wr

Re: [DISCUSS] "Require conversation resolution" in our PRs before merge?

+1 for trying and observing how it works. My concern is that adding an additional obstacle might lead to more unfinished PRs. It might be helpful to give the contributor some guidance on when we can resolve the comments. Best, Wei > On Dec 19, 2023, at 9:28 PM, Andrey Anshin wrote: > > We cou

Re: [DISCUSS] Future of Pendulum in Airflow

I’d vote for 2-a. Removing it in the upcoming minor release may not give enough time for airflow users to adjust. On the other hand, we would also want to decrease the amount of time we spend supporting various versions of Pendulum. 2.9 might be a reasonable compromise. Best, Wei > On Dec 19,

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on December 23, 2023

+1 (non-binding) We've tested the following provider RCs with our example DAGs without encountering issues. apache-airflow-providers-microsoft-azure==8.5.0rc1 apache-airflow-providers-sftp==4.8.1rc1 apache-airflow-providers-amazon==8.14.0rc1 apache-airflow-providers-apache-hive==6.4.0rc1 apache-

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on December 28, 2023

+1 (non-binding) for providers other than Weavaite Tested our example DAGs with the following providers without encountering issues apache-airflow-providers-amazon==8.15.0rc1 apache-airflow-providers-cncf-kubernetes==7.13.0rc1 apache-airflow-providers-google==10.13.1rc1 apache-airflow-providers-m

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on December 31, 2023

+1 (non binding) Best, Wei > On Jan 1, 2024, at 1:09 AM, Amogh Desai wrote: > > +1 non binding > > Tested if the RC is fine with other providers. Things look good 👍 > > On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 at 10:01 PM, Phani Kumar > wrote: > >> +1 non binding. >> >> On Sun, Dec 31, 2023 at 9:48 PM Hussein

Re: [DISCUSS] Interested in joining/leaving the triage team ?

Hi Jarek, I would also want to continue being part of the team as well. Best, Wei > On Jan 2, 2024, at 10:47 PM, utkarsh sharma wrote: > > I can move out of triage team now :) > > On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 at 8:15 PM, Rahul Vats wrote: > >> Hi Jarek, >> >> As discussed in #issue-triage, I would a

Re: [DISCUSSION] Enabling `pre-commit.ci` application for Airflow

Same as Amogh. Even though I would like to fix that myself, it would make it much easier for those who aren’t familiar with these tools and still be able to contribute. But we might need to doc this behavior somewhere (GitHub PR issue might make more sense 🤔). Otherwise, the contributor might be

Re: [VOTE] December PR of the Month

I want to vote for https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/35926, and thank Jarek for bringing it up. https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/35719 is also great, so it's a difficult choice. Best, Wei > On Jan 3, 2024, at 6:04 AM, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > > I'd like to propose another one: > https

Re: [DISCUSSION] Enabling `pre-commit.ci` application for Airflow

Same as Amogh. Even though I would like to fix that myself, it would make it much easier for those who aren’t familiar with these tools and still be able to contribute. But we might need to doc this behavior somewhere (GitHub PR issue might make more sense 🤔). Otherwise, the contributor might be

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Looking for potential new security team members

Hi Jarek, I’m also interested in learning security stuff, but I have no related experience. I'm not sure whether I fit the criteria. Best, Wei > On Jan 6, 2024, at 12:56 PM, Amogh Desai wrote: > > Hi Jarek, > > I have personally never done much on security, neither followed a lot of > blogs/

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on January 07, 2024

+1 (non-binding) We've tested with the following providers with our example DAGs without encountering issues. * apache-airflow-providers-amazon==8.16.0rc1 * apache-airflow-providers-apache-hive==6.4.1rc1 * apache-airflow-providers-apache-livy==3.7.1rc1 Best, Wei > On Jan 8, 2024, at 2:22 AM,

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New PMC member: Andrey Anshin (taragolis)

Congrats Andrey! 🎉 Best, Wei > On Jan 16, 2024, at 4:06 AM, Bishundeo, Rajeshwar > wrote: > > Congrats Andrey!! Well deserved!! > > -- Rajesh > > > > > > > On 2024-01-15, 3:01 PM, "Oliveira, Niko" LID> wrote: > > > CAUTION: This email originated fro

Re: [VOTE] New Airflow Community Provider: Teradata

+1 non binding Best, Wei > On Jan 17, 2024, at 2:54 AM, Josh Fell > wrote: > > +1 (binding) > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 1:53 PM Vincent Beck wrote: > >> +1 binding. Makes sense to me. >> >> On 2024/01/16 18:21:39 Jarek Potiuk wrote: >>> +1 binding >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 6:20 PM P

Re: [VOTE] Accept AIP-60 (Standard URI representation for Airflow Datasets)

+1 (non-binding) Best, Wei > On Jan 22, 2024, at 8:16 AM, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > > +1 (binding). > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 12:38 AM Igor Kholopov > wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 12:03 AM Maciej Obuchowski >> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 (non-binding) >>> >>> On Thu,

Re: [VOTE] January 2024 PR of the Month

My vote is for #36537. Love this packaging improvement! Best, Wei > On Jan 23, 2024, at 10:30 PM, Ryan Hatter > wrote: > > Gotta agree with Constance and go with 22253 -- how cool that the author > stuck with it all this time! > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 12:25 AM Aritra Basu > wrote: > >> M

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on January 22, 2024

+1 non-binding Tested my changes and example DAGs without encountering errors. Best, Wei > On Jan 24, 2024, at 4:18 PM, rom sharon wrote: > > +1 non-binding > > ‫בתאריך יום ד׳, 24 בינו׳ 2024 ב-10:17 מאת ‪Rahul Vats‬‏ <‪ > rah.sharm...@gmail.com‬‏>:‬ > >> +1 non-binding >> >> Verified below

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Starting experimenting with "Require conversation resolution" setting

I didn't notice much of a difference as a contributor. +1 vote Best, Wei > On Jan 30, 2024, at 11:41 AM, Amogh Desai wrote: > > Contrary to my initial expectation of the trouble this would bring in for > reviewers, it has been > pretty nice. I have not faced any issues in marking the conversati

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on January 30, 2024

+1 (non-binding) Tested my changes with our example DAG without encountering error Best, Wei > On Jan 31, 2024, at 6:34 AM, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > > +1 (binding) - checked reproducibility, licences, signatures, checksums - > all good. > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 5:42 PM Elad Kalif wrote: > >

Re: [VOTE] AIP 61 - Hybrid Executors

+1 (non-binding) Looking forward to it! Best, Wei > On Feb 1, 2024, at 7:57 PM, Aritra Basu wrote: > > +1 (non-binding) > > This would definitely be a good value add. Looked through the proposal and > it looks solid! Great job! > > -- > Regards, > Aritra Basu > > On Thu, Feb 1, 2024, 12:58 

Re: [VOTE] Add the ability to report slack messages that don't meet code of conduct

I believe that anonymity is important in this case. It would be great if we could have the bot suggested by Aritra, and option #2 is favorable. Alternatively, I would prefer option #1. Thanks! Best regards, Wei Lee > On Feb 4, 2024, at 12:37 AM, Aritra Basu wrote: > > I'm

Re: [VOTE] "Require conversation resolution" setting in PRs as permanent solution

+0 (non-binding) Best, Wei > On Feb 8, 2024, at 11:15 PM, Elad Kalif wrote: > > I'm -0 (binding) > > > On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 10:51 AM Akash Sharma <2akash111...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> +1 (non binding) >> >> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024, 13:30 Jarek Potiuk, wrote: >> >>> Since this is a controversi

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on February 12, 2024

-1 (non-binding) for amazon: 8.18.0rc1, cncf.kubernetes: 8.0.0rc1, common.sql: 1.11.0rc2. * Amazon: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/36685 doesn’t work as expected in the RC. It holds the DAG in the deferred state forever. * Kubernetes: issue mentioned in https://github.com/apache/airflow/

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on February 12, 2024

>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/37359 >> >> >> +1 (non-binding) for all other providers including amazon: 8.18.0rc1. >> I was unable to reproduce the issue that Wei Lee (@lee-w) has mentioned >> about https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/36685. The

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on February 17, 2024

+1 (non-binding) Tested both providers with our example DAGs without encountering an error. Verified #36330 Best, Wei > On Feb 17, 2024, at 5:51 PM, ayaan rayan wrote: > > ‫بتاریخ ہفتہ، 17 فروری، 2024 بوقت 1:22 PM‏ ‪Elad Kalif‬‏ > <‪elad...@apac

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on February 19, 2024

+1 (non-binding) Best, Wei > On Feb 19, 2024, at 6:59 PM, Phani Kumar > wrote: > > +1 non-binding. > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 4:15 PM Pankaj Singh > wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> Tested my changes. looking good. Thanks for the RC's and testing it. >> >> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 4:01 

Re: [VOTE] January 2024 PR of the Month

+1 for #37101 Best, Wei Kenten Danas 於 2024年2月27日 週二 上午5:28寫道： > +1 for #37101 - sooo many requests for this, the community will be very > happy to have this implemented! > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 11:52 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote: > > > +1 on #37101 -> I think all the changes that make the datas

Re: [VOTE] AIP-59 Performance testing framework

+1 (non-binding) btw I notice the content of "Date Created" is some kind of script instead of a real date. not sure whether it's expected. Best, Wei Aritra Basu 於 2024年3月13日 週三 上午10:32寫道： > +1 (non-binding) > > -- > Regards, > Aritra Basu > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 7:27 PM Bishundeo, Rajeshwar

Re: [DISCUSS] Applying D105 rule for our codebase ("undocumented magic methods") ?

+1 for removing this rule. If docstring is needed for some cases, we can still do that or add comments to PRs. Best, Wei > On Mar 25, 2024, at 1:31 PM, Amogh Desai wrote: > > After reading the emails in this thread, I too think that this rule is not > generally very useful, but we should have

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.8.4 from 2.8.4rc1

+1 (non-binding) Ran a few example DAGs and worked fine. Best, Wei > On Mar 25, 2024, at 3:30 PM, Amogh Desai wrote: > > +1 non binding > > Verified my changes, and ran a few example DAGs. I see no regressions. > > Thanks & Regards, > Amogh Desai > > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 8:11 PM Andre

Re: [VOTE] March 2024 PR of the Month

+1 for #36755 Best, Wei > On Mar 26, 2024, at 5:50 AM, Scheffler Jens (XC-AS/EAE-ADA-T) > wrote: > > My vote is +1 for #36755 - mainly because it was really a long - runner and > important we made it! > > Sent from Outlook for iOS > > F

Re: [VOTE] AIP-64: Keep TaskInstance try history

+1 (non-binding), looking forward to it! Best, Wei > On Mar 26, 2024, at 6:17 AM, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > > +1 (binding) > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 10:51 PM Scheffler Jens (XC-AS/EAE-ADA-T) > wrote: > >> +1 binding >> >> Sent from Outlook for iOS >> ___

Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal for adding Telemetry via Scarf

+1 to this. It would be really useful. As long as we can opt out, I think we’re good. Best, Wei > On Mar 31, 2024, at 12:47 AM, Kaxil Naik wrote: > > Grammar Correction: > > We should assume that those who deploy and upgrade Airflow - actually read >> and take into account what is written in

Re: [DISCUSS] Consider disabling self-hosted runners for commiter PRs

+1 for this. I do not yet have enough chance to experience many job failures, but it won’t harm us to test them out. Plus, it saves some of the cost. Best, Wei > On Apr 5, 2024, at 11:36 PM, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > > Seeing no big "no's" - I will prepare and run the experiment - starting > some

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New committer: Wei Lee

h.sharm...@gmail.com>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Congrats Wei, very well deserved! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Rahul Vats >>>>>>> >>>>>>>

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on April 10, 2024

+1 (non-binding) Verified my changes and tested with a few DAGs. Best, Wei > On Apr 13, 2024, at 3:51 PM, Utkarsh Sharma > wrote: > > +1 (non-binding) > test a few example dags. > > Thanks, > Utkarsh Sharma > > On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 11:46 AM Aritra Basu > wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >>

Re: [PROPOSAL] Keep >= LATEST MINOR for all providers using common.sql provider

I feel like this is the responsibility of the provider contributor 🤔 Maybe we could check whether the PR contains common.sql usage and raise a warning? Best, Wei > On Apr 12, 2024, at 12:31 AM, Andrey Anshin wrote: > > There are some drawbacks I saw here, it would force to upgrade other > prov

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on April 16, 2024

+1 (non-binding) I tested my change and ran example DAGs with cncf, databircks providers RCs, and it worked fine. Best, Wei > On Apr 16, 2024, at 8:40 PM, Elad Kalif wrote: > > Hey all, > > I have just cut the new wave Airflow Providers packages. This email is > calling a vote on the release

Re: [VOTE] April 2024 PR of the Month

Thanks Kaxil for nominating me and thank you to everyone for your support 🙏 Best, Wei > On May 2, 2024, at 12:06 AM, Ankit Chaurasia wrote: > > My vote goes to #38674 . > Awesome work Wei! > > Ankit Chaurasia > > > > > > > > *Ankit Chaurasia

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on May 01, 2024

+1 (non-binding) Best, Wei > On May 3, 2024, at 2:53 PM, Pankaj Singh wrote: > > +1 (non-binding) > > On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 6:03 PM Elad Kalif wrote: > >> I will exclude pinecone from this release. >> Please continue voting excluding pinecone provider >> >> On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 3:19 PM A

Re: [DISCUSS] simplifying try_number handling

Thanks, Daniel! +1 for this one. This was confusing when I worked on the starting from triggerer stuff. Best, Wei > On May 3, 2024, at 11:59 AM, Amogh Desai wrote: > > Looks good to me. > > Personally I never ran into any issues with this so far but I agree with > the issues it solves. > Th

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on May 01, 2024

irflow OSS Engineering team) >>>>> Location: Pune, Maharashtra, India >>>>> Timezone: Indian Standard Time (IST) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 4:25 PM Hussein Awala >> wrote: >>>>> >

Re: [VOTE] Proposal for adding Telemetry via Scarf

+1 non-binding Best, Wei > On May 9, 2024, at 10:39 AM, Phani Kumar > wrote: > > +1 binding, looking forward to add Scarf > > On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 7:42 AM Kaxil Naik wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Discussion thread: >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/7f6qyr8w2n8w34g63s7ybhzphgt8h43m >> >> I

  1   2   3   >