I also don't think it is a problem now. More legitimate case studies increase credibility of the project.
On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 9:56 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > Appears to be ... yes... alphabetical. `AAAAMyUseCase` anyone? > > On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 6:13 PM Andrew Godwin > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'd agree too, I don't see how a page absolutely full of real use cases >> is a bad thing! >> >> The only thing that should be considered is a neutral way to order the >> entries, I think, so people don't try and push themselves to the top - >> unless there's a policy or code for that in place that I've missed. >> >> Andrew >> >> On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 3:05 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I also think it's ok :) >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 8:53 AM Elad Kalif <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I think it's OK to publish legitimate looking use cases. >>>> If we will be swamped with content and PRs then we can revisit the >>>> policy. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 8:21 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I wonder if anyone has an opinion on what should go into our use cases >>>>> on the website. >>>>> >>>>> http://airflow.apache.org/use-cases/ >>>>> >>>>> We got a PR to add one more use case and it got me think on what we >>>>> want to have there, should we be more picky and get some more 'prominent' >>>>> cases (and likely maybe we should somehow vet or even invite companies we >>>>> want) or should we allow any 'legitimate looking' use case (and more of >>>>> them likely if we start encouraging companies). >>>>> >>>>> I do not think we ever discussed it. >>>>> >>>>> Anyone has an opinion ? >>>>> >>>>> PR here: >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow-site/pull/462 >>>>> >>>>> J. >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> >>> >> > > -- > +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> >
