potiuk commented on PR #70160: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/70160#issuecomment-5270183196
Agreeing with where this landed: `apache-airflow-providers-oracle-cloud` rather than `oci`, and after #71325 rather than before it. The sequencing matters more than it may look. #71325 turns `oracle` into an umbrella namespace (`providers/oracle/oracledb/`), which is what makes room for this provider to live at `providers/oracle/cloud/` as `airflow.providers.oracle.cloud`. Landing it now as a top-level `providers/oci/` would mean moving every module, the package name, the connection type and the docs a second time, and users would be asked to migrate twice. Concretely, what this PR needs before it can be reviewed for merge: - wait for #71325 to land, then re-target to `providers/oracle/cloud/` with the package name `apache-airflow-providers-oracle-cloud` and module path `airflow.providers.oracle.cloud`; - follow the new-provider procedure, including the announcement on the dev list — a new provider is a project-level commitment, not only a code review; - rebase to resolve the current `uv.lock` conflict from the flit-4 change on main. None of this is a comment on the code. The hook layer reads well — the auth types are enumerated, the OCI SDK import is guarded behind `AirflowOptionalProviderFeatureException`, and the connection form is properly specified. It is worth converting the PR to draft while it waits, so it drops out of the maintainer review queue and nobody re-reviews it in the interim. --- Drafted-by: Claude Code (Opus 5); reviewed by @potiuk before posting -- 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]
