+1 binding On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 9:32 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> > The vote doesn't say the release must happen, just that it can happen. > The final decision on when to release is still up to the release manager. > > Correct. It's on Ephraim's shoulders to decide :) (No pressure Ephraim ;) > ). > > On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 8:14 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> wrote: > > > +100 > > > > The vote doesn't say the release must happen, just that it can happen. > The > > final decision on when to release is still up to the release manager. > > > > On 12 August 2023 18:36:13 BST, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > >Hello everyone, > > > > > >I would like to raise a vote about modifying the result of vote from > > >https://lists.apache.org/thread/4dkbwob1wyl3xjbqdsmbd1mvgzflzp1f. and > > >RESTORE dagrun.conf UI option for triggering DAGs in 2.7.0 (which means > > >preparing RC2). > > > > > >I am writing that in the name of the release-management "concilium": > > >Ephraim, Hussein, Elad, Jens, Pankaj Koti, Rahul Vats, myself > > > > > >We discussed it today at the #release-management channel about the > problem > > >with dagrun.conf functionality removal from 2.7.0 "Trigger UI". > > >https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/C03G9H97MM2/p1691833923538419 > . > > >It's been also raised as concern by Hussein in the original PR and the > > >[VOTE] thread for 2.7.0rc1 > > >https://lists.apache.org/thread/pc89dh43kmpj267rpospo1lk5j3j6qkl . > > > > > >I think we all unanimously agree that removal of that functionality is > > >practically breaking change for many of our users, who will have no > choice > > >but to modify their DAGs and add param definitions to their DAGs if they > > >want to continue triggering their DAGs via UI. > > > > > >While it is a good thing to do and this was the original intention, > > >to "push" our users in this direction, we realised that we do not give > the > > >users a viable alternative and that effort required to rewrite their > DAGs > > >might be far too much and might be a huge blocker to 2.7 adoption. The > > >"push" seems to be rather brutal and forceful, not a gentle one. > > > > > >We did not realise this consequence when we - as a community - ran the > > >previous vote, but we now think releasing 2.7.0 without this option will > > >cause a lot of problems. > > > > > >Since we all share such a unanimous view, we propose (and Ephraim is > > going > > >to do so) cancel RC1 and Jens already has PRs that should restore the > > >functionality. PR is shortly coming. > > > > > >However, that requires modifying the results of the previous vote. > > > > > >Consider that my binding +1 vote. > > > > > >We want to accelerate the voting a bit and we also propose to produce an > > >RC2 with the option restored to accelerate the process and not to delay > > the > > >2.7.0 release too much. I propose this vote to last till 10 am Tuesday > > 26th > > >CEST - that should give enough time for everyone including the weekend > > >time. > > > > > >J. > > >
