potiuk commented on PR #23979: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/23979#issuecomment-1146269044
> From that description I think the source is the right choice This decision has been reverted later - see the last comment here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-8+Split+Providers+into+Separate+Packages+for+Airflow+2.0 And we documented it in Readme (AIPs often get outdated over time - that's why we move things to README to make sure they reflect the currrent state). > On a larger scope discussion - The fact that we both need to look up where operator should be is a problem. If we are not sure I think users are even more unsure where to look. I think it's time that we will consider a simpler rules like "it's will always be in the target name". e.g XtoY will always be in Y provider (Y is guaranteed to be exist while X is not). I will raise this in the mailing list as an modification to AIP-21 (just as soon as mailing list will be a bit more quite as there many parallel discussions right now). I think it's a bad idea. The maintainability rule was specifically foreseen for the "future" change where we split providers and people from given "provider" stakeholder should be able to subscribe to single repo/folder to see things that interest them for maintenance. This basically kills the idea of separating providers, if we are going to move "transfer" operators to source as AWS people will have to be more focused on all providers that "interface" with providers. The "maintainability" rule makes it fare more resaonable to split the providers. -- 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. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
