Yeah. It was a bit late. But this was the main reasoning - if we merge them quickly AND cherry-pick those to 2.4 branch we have a very good chance to avoid any accidental merge of something that was merged since the 2.4 branch cut-off - there were literally a handful of those PRs merged and it will be immediately visible (this is also one reason why I split it into many small PRs to detect and fix any kind of problems and remove just merged code while cherry-picking).
This was the reasoning behind doing it fast when I recalled that we hold off from it in the middle of 2.3 development. J,. On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 1:19 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> wrote: > One comment on the timing: but doing it now you make cherry picks for > 2.4.x harder, of which were about to do a lot of. The best time to do such > a change is just _before_ cutting the next main branch. > > On 10 September 2022 21:38:12 BST, Jarek Potiuk <pot...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> Hey Everyone, >> >> TL;DR; I planned to ask for help in reviewing the 48 (pretty much >> fully automated PRs I prepared, but a comment from TP made me think that >> maybe I went too much ahead and maybe there are other ideas on implementing >> the change (or even maybe not implementing it at all). >> >> More context: >> >> I have just attempted what I THOUGHT was generally accepted and good >> idea, but comment from TP made me think maybe I went ahead of everyone >> else, so I am reaching here to see if this was a good idea (And I am ready >> to back-out and do it differently - and follow another way if someone can >> propose it). >> >> I just (literally while watching Poland <-> Brazil Volleybal World >> Championship semi-finals) prepared 48 separate PRs to migrate to >> __future__.annotations which (I thought) was considered a good idea and >> something we wanted to defer to after v2-4-test branch cut-off because of >> the concerns that it might make cherry-picking more complex. It was 9X% >> fully automated conversion - by search/replace and adding `from __future__ >> import annotations` and letting upgrade do the job (as discussed before). >> I also split the one huge PR into 48 (!) much smaller PRs - basically one >> per each "airflow" core package, few big providers separately, tests >> separately (as they are far less risky than "core code" change). >> >> We already added __future__ annotation in a number of other places before >> - without a "broad" agreement and consensus/voting (different people did in >> various places - including myself and others) so I thought this is not >> something we need a broader voting/consensus on. >> >> Again - that was 95% automated change where I contributed mostly the >> thinking "how to split '' theI PR and all the rest was literally "git >> commit add <package>" (and let pyupgrade and our other pre-commits like >> isort and others) do the job. >> >> It never occured to me that this might be a problem for anyone. My >> understanding of the problem was: >> * we want to do it >> * we were afraid to do it before because it would make cherry-picking to >> 2-3 branch more problematic >> * we wanted to do it right "when" we cut-off the 2.4 branch (for the same >> reason as above - we wanted to avoid cherry-picking problems for 2.4.* >> changes) >> >> So I wanted to make this change as fast as humanly possible - and raise >> this multiple PRs so we can review/approve (and I'd cherry-pick them) as >> soon as possible to minimise the cherry-picking problem. >> >> But maybe I was too fast and it's not as straightforward as I thought it >> was? (actually it never occured to me that there might be a slightest >> problem with it after the earlier discussion). I literally thought about it >> as a mechanical change that we want to introduce and that doing that in >> small chunks (as discussed in the original PR) was the best approach. The >> comment from TP >> https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CCPRP7943/p1662837864413849 - >> made me think that I have misjudged it. >> >> I wanted to write that email asking all of the committers here to help to >> review and merge all those PRs as fast as possible (again - those are >> purely mechanical changes, there are literally a few - literally less than >> 5) manual changes I had to make to fix some mypy problems. >> All the PRs are here: >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3Afuture-annotations >> >> But then I ask for something else then: >> >> * do you think this is fine we add __future__ annotations in general >> * do you think the way I proposed it is somewhat too In-human (i honestly >> feel it is an in-human change - because it is fully automated by our tools >> :D). But is it wrong approach to have 48 PRs automatically prepared by our >> tools to get a "consistent" approach >> * did I do it too fast/too early ? >> * any ideas on how we can do it differently to avoid the "cherry-picking" >> problems (mentioned by others in the original message)? >> >> I am really concerned to ask if this is something I have done wrongly or >> misunderstood the consensus, and maybe chose the wrong way ? Maybe I should >> approach it differently and ask for consensus on such a flurry of PRS? Or >> maybe the timing is wrong. >> >> I am happy to follow in any way there - I can either keep the PRs and >> rebase them until the time is good (it takes about two minutes to rebase >> every one of them and apply the automation again) if the way I proposed it >> was because I misunderstood the "sentiment" about the change - or follow >> any other way that will help us to implement the change - or even abandon >> it completely if we will agree it's not a good idea. I am also happy to >> apply any "general comments" there - now that the PR's are there, applying >> any automation even on all of them to improve it, is rather simple. >> >> Looking forward to any comments. I am really curious how others look at >> it - regardless of the outcome - always eager to learn new things :) >> >> J. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 8:52 AM Tobiasz Kędzierski < >> tobiaszkedzier...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Great idea. +1 from me. Thanks for raising this up Jarek and thanks to >>> Pierre for great isort tip :) >>> >>> BR >>> Tobiasz >>> >>
