potiuk commented on issue #10523: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10523#issuecomment-685007809
> Following up on the Bitnami discussion above, I've spoken with @carrodher who is also happy to collaborate with the existing stable/airflow chart maintainers to bring bitnami/airflow to feature parity, with a migration path from stable. Here's an issue to help track that effort: [bitnami/charts#3580](https://github.com/bitnami/charts/issues/3580) @gsemet @maver1ck @thesuperzapper would you be willing to help with that? That's perfect - as I explained before - if there is a clear migration path from the 'stable' chart to 'bitnami' and the bitnami is updated to the feature parity with it - that's the best solution. We are focusing on 2.0 efforts now and if we can focus on this rather than supporting users of the existing helm chart - that's perfect. - I have completely no problem if people choose another, well maintained Helm Chart for Airflow. And some more context as well: For us - Helm Chart is one of the "extra" artifacts which we might or might not provide and our users might, or might not use. The core of our project is releasing Apache Airflow Sources. We went a similar process with the Docker Image - replacing the old Puckel's one. The Dockerfile (sources) is already officially released together with Airflow Sources, well documented, supports OpenShift, and has a few more features that we will add soon. It's also very well tested (during the CI) and documented https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/master/IMAGES.rst and the "stable" helm chart already uses it. And it has all the optimizations and process on how it can be extended or customized and even the whole [Airflow Summit Talk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDr3Y7q2XoI) that I gave about it. And I am going to apply for an [official](https://docs.docker.com/docker-hub/official_images/) status at the DockerHub soon as well. We want, eventually, a similar level of docs/support/approach fo r the Helm Chart. We are not there yet. First, we want to add a "Docker-Compose" configuration to it very soon. And Helm Chart will follow on its own pace. If we can have another solution in place that supports current users of 'stable' helm chart without bringing the extra effort to the team of Airflow Committers who work now on Airflow 2.0 - that's perfect. This will give us time to release it when it's ready and not earlier than that. Just to reiterate - being able to bring in the issues with missing docs and features if we already know that we have them might be a great way to contribute to the Airflow Community - @gsemet @thesuperzapper @maver1ck. Your experience with the 'stable' chart might be invaluable to tell us what you think is important that we miss in the current chart and we can evaluate it and make it happen (either by the committers or users contributing those). That might even help us to build proper migration documentation. > Perhaps we can have a session to brainstorm issue tickets to port over some popular features? Absolutely, I fully agree with @dimberman that session, where we could brainstorm about missing features, might be rather useful. We have weekly (as of next week) Monday meeting where we discuss 2.0 and Helm Chart is one of the topics. So maybe you would like to join one of those (Mondays 7.30 pm CEST). It's announced at our devlist and there is a [calendar](https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=c_dhdh3bdjc42c4ngtnpg7ovcs9g%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=Europe%2FWarsaw) you can subscribe to @gsemet @thesuperzapper @maver1ck - let us know here if/when you would like to join so we can add it to the agenda. > Each one pointing to the other, with a clear explanation that which is the official chart and other is the community driven chart that is ultimately meant to be superseeded. As far as the reference to either stable or Bitnami charts - sure, this is completely no problem. We are fully ready for that, and we have the very right place for all the things "Airflow" that are outside of the direct Apache Airflow Community scope/control and ASF ownership. We have some, rather clear, rules about referring to the information which is outside of the Airflow Community, and recently we introduced the [Ecosystem page](https://airflow.apache.org/ecosystem/), where it is clear, that those links are outside of the main Airflow Community with a required disclaimer (ASF has some clear guidelines about that as well). The page is at the official "airlflow.apache.org" page, where we aim to have "All things Airflow" from the users (not contributors) perspective, so this seems like the perfect place for the link to the BitNami/Stable chart. The "chart" folder in GitHub is only for developers and people following the devlist. According to ASF rules we are not even supposed to advertise it or encourage the regular "users" before we release it. Feel free to make PR to add those links even now! The process is super-simple - anyone can propose to add new entries there and open PR - which we will review and merge. @gsemet @thesuperzapper @maver1ck @carrodher: Feel free to make PR to that page - for both, stable one and Bitnami charts. I think they should be there already - but we copied the "tools and utils" section from JGhoman's "[Awesome Apache Airflow](https://github.com/jghoman/awesome-apache-airflow)" initially. When you scroll down the page you will get "Suggest a Change" on that page and it opens PR where you can add the right links. I will be glad to review it. > For discoverability, both charts can be listed in CNCF Artifact Hub (the successor to Helm Hub). The Bitnami charts - including airflow - are already listed there. @potiuk if you'd like help listing the airflow helm repo charts once they're indexed, please feel free to reach out. Sure - thank you for your kind effort. I am sure we will reach out when we are ready (and not earlier than that :D ). ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
