It looks like we have general consensus about putting transfer operators
into "source provider" package.
That's great for me as well.

Since I will be updating AIP-21 to reflect the "google" vs. "gcp" case, I
will also update it to add this decision.

If no-one objects (Lazy Consensus
<https://community.apache.org/committers/lazyConsensus.html>) till
Monday7th of October, 3.20 CEST, we will update AIP-21 with information
that transfer operators should be placed in the "source" provider module.

J.

On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 1:34 PM Kamil Breguła <kamil.breg...@polidea.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 7:42 PM Chris Palmer <ch...@crpalmer.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 1:22 PM Kamil Breguła <kamil.breg...@polidea.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 7:04 PM Chris Palmer <ch...@crpalmer.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Is there a reason why we can't use symlinks to have copies of the
> files
> > > > show up in both subpackages? So that `gcs_to_s3.py` would be under
> both
> > > > `aws/operators/` and `gcp/operators`. I could imagine there may be
> > > > technical reasons why this is a bad idea, but just thought I would
> ask.
> > > >
> > > Symlinks is not supported by git.
> > >
> > >
> > Why do you say that? This blog post
> > <https://www.mokacoding.com/blog/symliks-in-git/> details how you can
> use
> > them, and the caveats with regards to needing relative links not
> absolute.
> > The example repo he links to at the end includes a symlink which worked
> > fine for me when I cloned it. But maybe not relevant given the below:
>
> We still have to check if python packages can have links, but I'm
> afraid of this mechanism. This is not popular and may cause unexpected
> consequences.
>
>
> > > > Likewise, someone who spends 99% of their time working in AWS and
> using
> > > all
> > > > the operators in that subpackage, might not think to look in the GCP
> > > > package the first time they need a GCS to S3 operator. I'm admittedly
> > > > terrible at documentation, but if duplicating the files via symlinks
> > > isn't
> > > > an option, then is there an easy way we could duplicate the
> documentation
> > > > for those operators so they are easily findable in both doc sections?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Recently, I updated the documentation:
> > > https://airflow.readthedocs.io/en/latest/integration.html
> > > We have list of all integration in AWS, Azure, GCP.  If the operator
> > > concerns two cloud proivders, it repeats in two places. It's good for
> > > documentation.  DRY rule is only valid for source code.
> > > I am working on documentation for other operators.
> > > My work is part of this ticket:
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-5431
> > >
> > >
> > This updated documentation looks great, definitely heading in a direction
> > that makes it easier and addresses my concerns. (Although it took me a
> > while to realize those tables can be scrolled horizontally!).
> >
> I'm working on redesign of documentation theme. It's part of AIP-11
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-11+Create+a+Landing+Page+for+Apache+Airflow
> We are currently at the stage of collecting comments from the first
> phase - we sent materials to the community, but also conducted tests
> with real users
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/6fa1cdceb97ed17752978a8d4202bf1ff1a86c6b50bbc9d09f694166@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
>


-- 

Jarek Potiuk
Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer

M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
[image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>

Reply via email to