afeld opened a new issue, #48608:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/48608

   ### What do you see as an issue?
   
   The 
[Overview](https://airflow.apache.org/docs/apache-airflow/stable/index.html), 
[Fundamental 
Concepts](https://airflow.apache.org/docs/apache-airflow/stable/tutorial/fundamentals.html),
 and 
[DAGs](https://airflow.apache.org/docs/apache-airflow/stable/core-concepts/dags.html)
 pages explain use of Airflow through the traditional paradigm. It's only once 
you get to [Working with 
TaskFlow](https://airflow.apache.org/docs/apache-airflow/stable/tutorial/taskflow.html)
 that the new paradigm is introduced.
   
   ### Solving the problem
   
   Assuming Taskflow is the recommended paradigm for new users, I suggest that 
those introductory pages are rewritten to leverage it.
   
   ### Anything else
   
   I'm having my students try out Airflow for some data engineering projects, 
[having them go through this 
documentation](https://github.com/advanced-computing/course-materials/blob/main/readings/week_11.md).
 It's confusing that the documentation introduces one paradigm, and then later 
(seems to?) say "do it this other [simpler] way instead."
   
   While I'm sure a lot of existing users are using the old paradigm, they are 
presumably less likely to be going through the introductory materials. 
Therefore, those pages could be rewritten without them noticing.
   
   Granted, I'm new to Airflow myself, so I may be totally misunderstanding the 
intention/limitations.
   
   ### Are you willing to submit PR?
   
   - [x] Yes I am willing to submit a PR!
   
   ### Code of Conduct
   
   - [x] I agree to follow this project's [Code of 
Conduct](https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md)
   


-- 
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