o-nikolas commented on code in PR #32526:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/32526#discussion_r1260069881
##########
airflow/providers/celery/CHANGELOG.rst:
##########
@@ -27,6 +27,13 @@
Changelog
---------
+3.3.0
+.....
+
+.. note::
+ This provider release is the first release that has Celery Executor and
+ Celery Kubernetes Executor moved from the core ``apache-airflow`` package.
Review Comment:
```suggestion
Celery Kubernetes Executor moved from the core ``apache-airflow`` package
to a Celery
provider package.
```
##########
airflow/executors/executor_loader.py:
##########
@@ -60,8 +60,9 @@ class ExecutorLoader:
LOCAL_EXECUTOR: "airflow.executors.local_executor.LocalExecutor",
LOCAL_KUBERNETES_EXECUTOR:
"airflow.executors.local_kubernetes_executor.LocalKubernetesExecutor",
SEQUENTIAL_EXECUTOR:
"airflow.executors.sequential_executor.SequentialExecutor",
- CELERY_EXECUTOR: "airflow.executors.celery_executor.CeleryExecutor",
- CELERY_KUBERNETES_EXECUTOR:
"airflow.executors.celery_kubernetes_executor.CeleryKubernetesExecutor",
+ CELERY_EXECUTOR:
"airflow.providers.celery.executors.celery_executor.CeleryExecutor",
+ CELERY_KUBERNETES_EXECUTOR: "airflow.providers.celery."
+ "executors.celery_kubernetes_executor.CeleryKubernetesExecutor",
Review Comment:
Perhaps this is good for back-compat, but I wonder if Airflow should be so
opinionated about executors that live in providers. For example, for the new
AWS executors we are working on, would we add them here as well? I was assuming
not. But I'm interested to hear input from others
--
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]
