I will be working this week to make some of the last changes - based on the summary above and plan to make the RC of backport operators still this week - hopefully with voting of PMC it is going to be released officially next week.
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 4:26 PM Kaxil Naik <[email protected]> wrote: > > The following are the things that we (Me, Ash & Jarek) agree upon for the > Backport Packages. > > - Our Release Guide: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Releasing+Airflow - > This has details (or links to other docs) on how to create your GPG KEYS > and upload them to https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/airflow/KEYS. > And has the details of the actual release process. Feel free to create a > separate section (or a Subpage) for releasing the Backport package. > - Our normal RC Voting rules apply > - Versioning: *CALVER* (YYYY-MM-DD) > - Release backport packages for all the providers for the first one. After > that, they can be released individually > - Docs: The Readme inside each Provider backport package will contain > details about the list of new Operators/Hooks/Secrets etc > - ReadtheDocs: Create a new page that shows all the Backport Packages that > were released with Changelogs (We should not add this page on > airflow.apache.org doc site, so maybe add an RTD env var to ignore - ???) > - Have 'backport' in the name (e.g apache-airflow-backport-provider-google) > of the final release candidate and the package to future-proof us if we > ever separate the provides folder to separate repos > - Create separate folder for each provider > downloads.apache.org/airflow/backport-providers/$provider/$ver/$x.whl > - To get files into downloads.apache.org we do it via SVN, and we should > obviously upload it to dev/ first (which is what your release guide says to > do) > - We will have a single Git Tag for each Backport Release (e.g > backport-provider-2020-04-27) can have multiple providers released under it > but a Single Git Tag > > I have pasted the notes here if anyone has a different opinion on any of > the points above please let us know. > > Regards, > Kaxil > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 3:47 PM Kaxil Naik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I still disagree with that, at least in the case of Operator related bugs. > > But anyways that is not that important or doesn't really matter. > > > > Just summarizing my opinion on backport packages: > > > > - CALVER makes sense for versioning. > > - Let's not make "system-tests" hard criteria to release backport > > packages. It is ideal if we have them, but even if we don't we should > > still > > release them if they have sufficient unit-tests. > > > > Regards, > > Kaxil > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 3:41 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> > >>> Well, "bug" and "features" are separate things. If there is a broken code > >>> or bug in Airflow 1.10.*, we should fix it was my point :) > >>> > >> Well. We all know this one (not sure if the mailing list passes so link > >> to share: https://programowo.net/photo/21/ > >> > >> Sometimes it's really hard to distinguish ;). > >> > >> But yeah. Seriously - we do fix bugs that are fixable in 1.10 :). And we > >> do not shy away from that. > >> > >> -- Jarek Potiuk Polidea | Principal Software Engineer M: +48 660 796 129
