Ah ... put it in a wrong thread, sorry :) ...

On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 12:39 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote:

> OK. Seeing that - I think I will do the next step - I will point this
> discussion to at the discord of Dask and see if there is a volunteer there
> who would like to take on fixing the "Quarantined" issue
> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/32778 -> we have the flaky tests
> currently marked as "Quarantined - so it is not really running in regular
> tests anyway. If there is no-one stepping in and wanting to commit to take
> over and manage fixing of similar issues, I will start a voting thread for
> removal,
>
> For me that is an ultimate (and very concrete) "checkpoint"  if the Dask
> community is up to the task in our repo. And if they are not - they are
> always free to fork it and maintain their own provider. I think it's a very
> fair approach and quite reasonable expectation - taking into account that
> we have so little usage and so many problems.
>
> J
>
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 10:28 AM Wei Lee <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> +1 for this moving it. It gives us more flexibility on both the core and
>> provider sides.
>>
>> Best,
>> Wei
>>
>> > On Nov 17, 2023, at 9:15 AM, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > I am all for it. As we saw already and we see it more in the future -
>> > moving code of out of Airflow core to provider and having separate
>> > provider's release cycle and lifecycle is generally beneficial:
>> >
>> > * dependencies can be more decoupled - even if we pin FAB with a
>> particular
>> > version of provider, our users can freely change provider version
>> > without updating airflow and the other way round - update airflow
>> without
>> > changing provider version (thus without changing FAB).
>> > * we will be able to remove FAB in the future from active maintenance -
>> > similarly to discussed dask executor we can stop maintaining FAB
>> provider
>> > in the future (no plans now of course - but it might happen -
>> especially if
>> > we will implement a way to migrate current USER/ROLE of FAB to something
>> > else
>> >
>> > I think we've learned already a lot on how to manage lifecycle of
>> providers
>> > and have a number of tools and processes, so I think it will not be too
>> > problematic.
>> >
>> > J.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 9:46 PM Beck, Vincent
>> <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hello,
>> >>
>> >> I am sending this email to gather feedbacks/concerns on what is going
>> to
>> >> happen regarding AIP-56 (
>> >>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-56+Extensible+user+management
>> ).
>> >> The majority of the work related to AIP-56 is now completed. As a
>> summary,
>> >> all the code related to user authentication and user authorization has
>> been
>> >> packaged in a new component called "FAB auth manager" (
>> >>
>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/airflow/auth/managers/fab/fab_auth_manager.py
>> ).
>> >> Now, all user authentication and user authorization operations are
>> done in
>> >> this FAB auth manager. The purpose of having this new component is to
>> be
>> >> able to plug (and/or create) another "auth manager" if desired.
>> >>
>> >> For simplification reasons, this FAB auth manager is still in core
>> Airflow
>> >> under "airflow.auth.managers.fab" (
>> >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/tree/main/airflow/auth/managers/fab)
>> >> but the ultimate plan is to move the module
>> "airflow.auth.managers.fab" to
>> >> a new provider. Of course, this new provider would still be installed
>> by
>> >> default in Airflow and will have no impact for the users.
>> >>
>> >> An issue had been created for that work and a discussion has started
>> but I
>> >> wanted to increase the audience and potentially get more
>> feedbacks/concerns
>> >> before actually doing so:
>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/32210.
>> >> In this issue you will also find the motivations behind moving this
>> code to
>> >> a new provider.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> Vincent
>> >>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>
>>

Reply via email to