As promised during the last call I prepared the proposal on how we can approach the package model for Airflow 2.0 - including the "Provider Packages" approach.
https://s.apache.org/airflow-2-0-package-model I would like to discuss it at our next meeting on Monday. I'd love to hear your comments. J. On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 10:23 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 Kevin on the call :). > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 12:59 PM Kaxil Naik <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Thanks Kevin, Looking forward to see you on the next call. >> >> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 08:54 Kevin Yang <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Thank you Kaxil, this is extremely helpful. We'll try to join at least the >> > next meeting trying to see if we can provide more perspectives on >> > SmartSensor and anything else we can help. >> > >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Kevin Y >> > >> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 4:28 PM Kaxil Naik <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > Hi all, >> > > >> > > I have created a document to summarize the discussion from our second dev >> > > call for Airflow 2.0. >> > > >> > > Thank you all who joined the call. >> > > >> > > *Doc Link*: >> > > >> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Meeting+Notes#MeetingNotes-#2:24Aug2020 >> > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Meeting+Notes#MeetingNotes-%232:24Aug2020> >> > > < >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Meeting+Notes#MeetingNotes-%232:24Aug2020 >> > > >> > > >> > > To all those who attended, can you please double-check and add if I have >> > > missed anything? >> > > >> > > To all those who didn't join, if you disagree to anything in the Summary >> > > please voice your opinion. >> > > >> > > Including the Summary here too (might potentially break formatting): >> > > >> > > *Key Decisions* >> > > >> > > - *Smart Sensors – *in 2.0 or 2.1 >> > > - AIP-17 >> > > < >> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-17%3A+Consolidate+and+de-duplicate+sensor+tasks+in+airflow+Smart+Sensor >> > > > >> > > | >> > > PR: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/5499 >> > > - We have not come to a conclusion yet on whether this should be >> > > included in 2.0 or not. The majority is towards adding it in 2.0 >> > (as >> > > it >> > > supports Airflow 2.0's Scalability story) and marking it as >> > > *experimental*. >> > > - There were some questions raised around supporting this new >> > > feature. So we decided that *everyone would take a look at the PR >> > > itself and we will spend a few minutes in the next meeting to >> > decide >> > > whether it is 2.0 or not*. >> > > - *Simplification of KubernetesExecutor / KubernetesPodOperator* >> > > - PR: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/10393 >> > > - This will be part of *Airflow 2.0* >> > > - *Airflow Upgrade Check* (airflow upgrade-check)* command * >> > > - WIP PR: PR: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/9467 | Design >> > > Doc: >> > > >> > > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/17tB9KZrH871q3AEafqR_i2I7Nrn-OT7le_P49G65VzM/edit#heading=h.vv80w6y621gv >> > > - *Scope*: >> > > - Users bash script won’t be included but anything in the core >> > > Airflow would be covered >> > > - >> > > >> > > *DAG Definitions*: >> > > - Changes in Path for contrib to Providers packages >> > > - DAG Interfaces: changes in arguments of a DAG / >> > BaseOperator >> > > - *Configurations*: >> > > - Option to auto-replace deprecated configs with new options >> > > - *Run-time Core items*: >> > > - Changes like "Connection type can't be null". The >> > > upgrade-check should at least shown warning if it can't >> > > provide option to >> > > detect the type. >> > > - *CLI refactor is out-of-scope* >> > > - Automatic refactor is *out-of-scope* as it is too difficult >> > > to cover all the cases in the Users bash scripts. >> > > - This will be covered by docs or by showing warnings via the >> > > upgrade-check command >> > > - *Experimental API to New API refactor is out-of-scope* (will >> > be >> > > covered by Migration docs) >> > > - We agreed that the airflow upgrade-check command *needs to be >> > > available in the last release before Airflow 2.0* (1.10.x or >> > 1.11.x) >> > > - Potential problems with time-consuming DB Migration were also >> > > discussed. If we identify such a DB Migration (example the one >> > involving >> > > TaskInstance table) should be noted separately in Updating.md to >> > > provide a >> > > warning to the users. >> > > - *DEV Calls Feedback* >> > > - We agreed on having *Weekly calls from 7 September onwards* >> > > - Calls will start with a 5-min reviewing the progress from the >> > last >> > > call towards 2.0 >> > > - *Process* >> > > - A *2.0.0-test* branch will be created on 10 Sep 2020 >> > > - Changelog: >> > > - The current way of Changelog is OK. We don't need further >> > > categorization like Webserver, Scheduler etc. >> > > - Separate Changelog would be created for Providers Packages >> > > - We need to figure a way to tag/label PRs & Issues with correct >> > > categories. Some options that were discussed were: >> > > - Adding labels on the PRs & Issues via Bot >> > > - A field in PR template for PR authors to add, the bot would >> > > then read the field which would be used to label the PR >> > > - Add rules, for example Committers needs to add appropriate >> > > labels to the PR before merging it. We could have a >> > > scheduled Github >> > > Actions workflow that would fail if it finds PRs without >> > > labels. >> > > >> > > *Things to Discuss Next* >> > > >> > > - *7 September* >> > > - Progress, Current Work & Discussions >> > > - API >> > > - Providers Packages >> > > - Discuss open questions >> > > - Improvements to SubDags / Concept of TaskGroup >> > > - AIP-34 <https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/10153> >> > > - *14 September* >> > > - Process: >> > > - When should we defer the in-scope items to post-2.0 >> > > - Completion by a date? >> > > - Progress by a date? >> > > - Progress, Current Work & Discussions >> > > - Scheduler HA >> > > - Docs Improvements >> > > - Helm Chart >> > > - Discuss the issue with sources >> > > >> > > >> > > Regards, >> > > Kaxil >> > > >> > > > > > -- > > Jarek Potiuk > Polidea | Principal Software Engineer > > M: +48 660 796 129 > > -- Jarek Potiuk Polidea | Principal Software Engineer M: +48 660 796 129
