Ah right okay, not an impossible task then.
Still, I am very strongly in favour of the smallest change for the goal (which
is to allow back-ported providers to be installed on 1.10.x) - both cos then
most things are more normal, including code under a provider, and then that way
we don't have to fight our tools.
On Feb 5 2020, at 12:08 pm, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > If we make every namespace under airflow.* implict, then we have to ensure
> > that our modules do not clash with _any and every_ possible top level
> > package that exists in PyPi, because we cannot know what might be installed
> > by our users. That seems like an impossible feat. Have I mis-understood?
> > If I haven't mis-understoond then I this is I think a strong argument for
> > _not_ making more than we absolutely have to an implicit namepsace.
> >
>
> Nope. This is a problem for MyPy and Pytest only so mostly for our tooling.
> And only if our own modules import packages with the same name as the
> module. So we are in full control here.
>
> >
>
> > -a
> >
>
> --
> Jarek Potiuk
> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
>
> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
>
