dstandish commented on PR #39046:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/39046#issuecomment-2065539169

   so the problem @o-nikolas is that the we don't have a TIRun object, for 
example. we only have TI. this one object is all we have no matter how many 
retries or clears there are.  so we are stuck with the problem of losing 
history of basically every kind when you are talking about the TI object.  if 
your concern is what _actually_ happened, the only real source of truth for 
that is logs, and i would suggest just logging what executor it ran with 
(indeed it probably already does).
   
   i understand your frustration but just calling it like I see it as we should 
all do.  note that i didn't "request changes" and block anything, and that's 
intentional cus if i'm outnumbered i go with the wisdom of the group.  a 
totally valid option when we can't reach consensus I think is to just bring it 
to the dev list.  i've done this in the past, and that's what i would recommend 
if you feel like we're not getting to the right result.
   
   i don't personally think of this as "it's broken now for everything else, 
why fix it for this one".  from my perspective, i'm just saying, i don't think 
it makes sense to not allow the executor to be changed in between retries etc.  
unless there's a good reason, we should respect the code the user provides i 
think.  i don't think "we want to use TI to tell the truth about historical 
runs" is a good reason because (1) it has this negative consequence of not 
respecting the user's current config and (2) TI is simply incapable of doing so 
in general (as mentioned above) and therefore, until Jed's vision with keeping 
TI history is realized, i think we must simply rely on logs as the source of 
truth for that.
   


-- 
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]

Reply via email to