-1 from me. Though I agree in principle with the idea of consolidation, I don't think we should be doing this yet until we understand the implications completely. I am really not in favor of deprecation of the existing params, unless there is really no alternative.
On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 2:37 PM Daniel Standish <daniel.stand...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: > So far, seems all in favor. > > I will just highlight, in case it's not clear.... when we release this > (presumably 2.4), basically every single dag in existence will start > emitting deprecation warnings, and prior to 3.0, basically every dag in > existence will need to be updated. > > Thankfully, for most people, this should be an easy update since DAG is > kwargs only, IIRC. > > > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2022, 2:27 PM Brent Bovenzi <br...@astronomer.io.invalid> > wrote: > >> +1 to consolidating and "schedule". >> >> On Fri, Jul 29, 2022, 10:12 PM Drew Hubl <drew.h...@astronomer.io.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 for ‘schedule', and another +1 to the importance of consolidating to >>> one being more important than the name of that one >>> >>> On Jul 29, 2022, at 1:58 PM, Josh Fell < >>> josh.d.f...@astronomer.io.INVALID> wrote: >>> >>> Consolidating to a single scheduling parameter is a big +1 from me. >>> `schedule` seems like a nice catch-all. >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 9:10 AM Jed Cunningham <jedcunning...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 on moving to a single `schedule` param. >>>> >>> >>>
