Yeah that sounds good too.

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 15:17 Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

> The problem with tightly specifying all the constraints (including the
> providers) is that it means you can't do something like `pip install -U
> apache-airflow-providers-google` but have the _core_ Airflow constrained.
> (Pip may be better at upgrading less in cases like this now?)
>
> I have a proposal: two constraint files (for each python version) -- a
> "core" and a "full".
>
> The "full" is as you propose, with the providers, and their deps in the
> file.
>
> The "core" is _just_ the core requirements for Airflow without any
> providers, or any transitive deps. This will include deps non-provider
> extras though.
>
> How does that sound?
>
> -ash
>
> On Thu, 11 Feb, 2021 at 14:07, Kaxil Naik <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Yup, that is correct. That will allow us to make sure that whenever
> Airflow was released, all the dependencies including the provider are
> snapshotted in constraints. So even if someone tries to install the same
> version a year later with constraints it should work fine without having to
> worry about the latest version of a specific provider breaking it.
>
> And then users can ofcourse install or upgrade providers after that if
> they like.
>
> Kaxil - did I understand it correctly ? If so - I think this is the best
>> we can do to keep two properties:
>
> * repeatable installation of already released version
>> * capability (and easy way of) upgrading to latest providers
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:42 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > Oh I misunderstood -- I thought you were suggesting putting the
>> transitive deps of apache-airflow-providers-google v2.0 into constraint-2.0
>> files etc.
>>
>> Well. That too. The transitive deps already are in the constraint files
>> and that will remain, I think this is the main reason why we have
>> the constraint files. The main reason why constraint files are "snapshots
>> of all dependencies'' (currently they exclude providers) is to have a
>> repeatable installation. Let me reiterate then how I understand Kaxil's
>> proposal (which I think makes perfect sense).
>>
>> I really see the "extras" and constraints as a convenient way for users
>> to install a released version of airflow with the set of providers they
>> choose and dependencies in versions that we know are working. No more, no
>> less. Then they are free to upgrade the dependencies as they wish.
>>
>> How I see the current proposal - the constraint files will only differ
>> from the current ones by adding 'apache-airflow-providers-google==1.0.0"
>> for example. Literally (compared to the current process) it means that we
>> will just add the version of providers that were released at the time the
>> airflow X.Y.Z version was released (this is one line change in generation
>> of constraints as we have now). So the final constraint file for 2.0.1
>> version will look like this:
>>
>> apache-airfow-providers-google=1.0.0
>> google-cloud-automl=1.9.0
>> ....
>> ~500 other dependencies with ==
>> ...
>>
>> Those constraint files will contain all providers that were released at
>> the time of airflow X.Y.Z release and all their transitive dependencies.
>> This way if you run  'pip apache-airflow[google, amazon]==2.0.1
>> --constraints ...../2.0.1/python3.6.txt ' - you will always get the
>> google-provider==1.0.0 installed and amazon 1.0.0 as well.
>>
>> And that preserves the only capability that constraint files + extras
>> give - an easy installation path when you want to install an older version
>> of airflow for the first time - with pretty much guarantee that it will
>> always work (this is the only problem constraint files were introduced.
>> This will be now extended to this semantic: "install airflow x.y.z with all
>> the providers and dependencies that we found were ok at the time when x.y.z
>> were released".
>>
>> Then, the users will still be free to do `pip install --upgrade
>> apache-airflow-providers-google' and specific upgrade airflow provider to
>> the latest version. Or if they are adventurous they could upgrade all
>> dependencies to latest with 'pip install apache-airflow[google] --upgrade
>> --upgrade-strategy eager' (but without guarantee it will work).
>>
>> Or if there is a new airflow released they could run: 'pip
>> apache-airflow[google, amazon]==2.0.2 --constraints
>> ...../2.0.2/python3.6.txt` - and they will get set of dependencies and
>> providers that were there at the time of 2.0.2 release (but still they are
>> free to upgrade to latest versions of providers at will).
>>
>> Kaxil - did I understand it correctly ? If so - I think this is the best
>> we can do to keep two properties:
>>
>> * repeatable installation of already released version
>> * capability (and easy way of) upgrading to latest providers
>>
>>
>> J.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 1:06 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Oh I misunderstood -- I thought you were suggesting putting the
>>> transitive deps of apache-airflow-providers-google v2.0 in to
>>> constraint-2.0 files etc.
>>>
>>> Cool
>>>
>>> On Thu, 11 Feb, 2021 at 12:11, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> > This unfortunately means that people would be unable to install v1 of
>>> the google provider anymore -- forcing them to upgrade.
>>>
>>> Not really. If we specify just this: [google] ->
>>> "apache-airflow-providers-google" - any provider version could be installed.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:07 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 11 Feb, 2021 at 00:34, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> *Solution proposal:*
>>>>
>>>> Every time when we release a new wave of providers, we regenerate the
>>>> constraints for all past released 2.* versions of airflow, so that the new
>>>> providers are taken into account and they can install cleanly with `pip
>>>> install apache-airflow[provider]==2.0.N --constraint == .... 2.0.N/python
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Both problems can be solved rather easily. 1) requires 2.0.2 release of
>>>> Airflow, 2) can be implemented any time (happy to do it).
>>>>
>>>> Let me know what you think.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This unfortunately means that people would be unable to install v1 of
>>>> the google provider anymore -- forcing them to upgrade.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure there's a _ready_ solution to this though.
>>>>
>>>> -ash
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> +48 660 796 129
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> +48 660 796 129
>>
>

Reply via email to