I suggest also removing it from pypi for security reasons. If there is a security issue with it then the issue will remain with us.
B. Sent from my iPhone > On 26 Oct 2023, at 20:20, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > Hello Airflow community, > > How do we feel about removing the Qubole provider completely (leaving only > old releases in PyPI? > > On September 1 2023 ( > https://lists.apache.org/thread/p394d7w7gc7lz61g7qdthl96bc9kprxh) the > Qubole operator ws suspended. > > Due to the reasons described in the thread (Qubole got acquired and the > service is generally abandoned) there is pretty much no chance for it to be > resumed. > > I'd love to remove it completely and introduce a process where we can do > similar things in the future for other providers if we decide to do so. > > I checked in the Attic project in the ASF (this is where abandoned project > of the ASF get moved to) and it seems that just removing part of the > project that has an active PMC is not going through attic > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATTIC-218 . We are free to define our > rules for that and I would like to use the opportunity to hash it out and > propose a process (similarly to suspension) and criteria to remove > providers from being maintained by us. > > It's more than suspension. We will completely stop updating the related > code (right now some automated changes can still be applied and suspended > providers can be resumed with simple PR). I would like to have the "next" > step after "suspending" - removal. > > Roughly - we send PROPOSAL followed by VOTE (or immediately VOTE in > obvious cases) with justification, PMC members only have the binding votes > (similar as for releases). > > Only git history will remain - all the rest will be removed (including > extra) - no traces of the provider remain in the next MINOR release (2.8.0 > in the case of Quibole). The provider will still be in PyPI and historical > releases will be in https://archive.apache.org . If someone would like to > bring back such a provider, It should go through the same process as a new > provider (voting/consensus). And we might reject it. > > WDYT? Any comments for such an approach / process ? > > J. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org
