potiuk commented on pull request #12082: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/12082#issuecomment-722296667
> was how I handled this before -- that cd won't be needed anymore either I don't think. That was not the only problem. There were other problems when I tried to manually reproduce this. When I tried to build the packages with the previous procedure for single packages, it did not work - the packages produced did not contain any python files and few other things (like readthedocs - which will be handled by https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/11423). Especially when someone tried to do it manually and debug any problems, it was very surprising that things work differently depending on the folder you were at (which was often the default one). It was rather brittle (but the reason was it was not battle-tested yet and depended on several assumptions that were broken by the implicit packages change). This change when completed will make it much more resilient and much easier to debug - on top of "breeze" driven process I will also describe shortly how to manually reproduce all the steps and how to debug it so that whoever does it in the future will know what to do and how to debug it. While I still think implicit packages and the approach is good, we simply should follow it up and update the other part of the process that depend on it to be more robust and rock solid. Which this PR is all about. ---------------------------------------------------------------- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
