potiuk commented on PR #25121: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/25121#issuecomment-1191660180
> The new paragraph looks good, and it does give us something to point at to say "we told you it was experimental", I'm not sure it changes much. > > I'm not exactly sure how to articulate my thoughts, but I'll try. I think you managed very well :). > > This feels to me like we are helping hide the fact people didn't architect their DAGs properly. If you've hit the point where this is necessary, then you've already strayed out of the norm. Putting out a complex chuck of code that'll be copy pasted around, getting out of date, what have you is just adding an extra burden to maintenance and support. I can totally imagine down the road an upgrade breaking an early version of this and us getting hard to diagnose bug reports because of it. Worse, if the users DAGs are big/complex enough to need this, they likely can't/won't share it as a reproduction so that adds an extra burden. > Yeah I know exactly what you mean. I have reservations myself, looking brittleness of the solution. I actually think I will do it differently. I will - myself - write a short blog post acompanying the one from @itayB where I add a more complete solution and I also publish it in Airflow Publication. > > There are other ways to DRY up a DAG than to have them all come from a single loop man_shrugging. Should we maybe then mention THIS instead? Maybe that is a better approach that we warn the users not to do it? > > tldr: very clever solution, but too esoteric/brittle to be officially documented for end users imo. Question: woudl you also object if just get the "official" approach from #25161 ? Or is it mostly the brittleness ? -- 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]
