-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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>

Reply via email to