potiuk commented on code in PR #26759: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/26759#discussion_r984204464
########## docs/apache-airflow/production-deployment.rst: ########## @@ -222,6 +222,29 @@ you can exchange the Google Cloud Platform identity to the Amazon Web Service id which effectively means access to Amazon Web Service platform. For more information, see: :ref:`howto/connection:aws:gcp-federation` + +Applying patches from ``main`` +============================== + +On occasion, a user may want to apply a patch from ``main`` which has not yet made it into a release. Assuming you want to apply a specific PR to one of the official airflow images, you can apply roughly as follows. It's also possible to apply a specific commit. + +.. code-block:: docker Review Comment: The more I think about it the more i think we even should not make it an end user documentation and it is not the matter of our opinions but I looked it up again and this is rather explicitly specified int the ASF release policy: https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#publication > Projects SHALL publish official releases and SHALL NOT publish unreleased materials outside the development community. > During the process of developing software and preparing a release, various packages are made available to the development community for testing purposes. Projects MUST direct outsiders towards official releases rather than raw source repositories, nightly builds, snapshots, release candidates, or any other similar packages. Projects SHOULD make available developer resources to support individuals actively participating in development or following the dev list and thus aware of the conditions placed on unreleased materials. So really patching 'main' should not be advertised to anyone outside of the development community (so anyone who uses GitHub and reads devlist. And this has strong foundation from the legal point of view I believe. The release process where release is published as explicit 'act' of PMC has certIn legal implications. And anyone using those might be aware of the conditions. This is really about potential litigations against the ASF or PMC members. If someone loses a fortune using released sources and PMC voted on this and all was according to ASF policies, then ASF provides idem ification to PMC members and take over the litigation burden (or most likely just assist with dropping the case). But this is under the condition that the user uses released code. If we are suggesting 'main' in the user docs, we effectively bypass this. If we discuss it in GitHub issues/PRs/devlist this is a different story because the context of this is clearly 'devlopment' community. If we put it in the user documentation, there is no such distinction. -- 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]
