Pendulum 3 was released. https://pypi.org/project/pendulum/
Bolke On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 at 18:38, Aritra Basu <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with wanting to stay away from having to deal with dst but I am on > the side of biting the bullet and transitioning to datetime and testing > thoroughly, especially considering our current predicament with pendulum > and the potential of us being in the same place again potentially in the > future. > > -- > Regards, > Aritra Basu > > On Fri, Dec 1, 2023, 10:27 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Yeah. Agree it's a challenge but I think it's also an opportunity to > > fix those - because whether we admit it, or not - we already have those > > problems - regardless of Pendulum's use. > > > > If you look at the issues (especially ones created around DST time) - > there > > are always one or two issues (even in latest versions of Airflow) where > DST > > transition is causing people problems. And they are rarely > > solved/addressed. > > > > Example from last October: > > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/35272 > > > > Example from May 2022: > > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/23400 > > > > And Example from March 2020 ( which might or might not be fixed by the > open > > PR): > > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/7999 > > > > J. > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 5:41 PM Bolke de Bruin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The alternative is to vendor in or fork pendulum as part of the Airflow > > > project. Also a major undertaking but maybe less effort. > > > > > > We shouldn't just address this as a technical challenge. The question > > > becomes: does that combination fornally do DST transitions correctly, > > does > > > it do leap seconds correctly, does it add dates correctly, does it do > > > timezone traversal correctly and many many other things. > > > > > > So if we switch to the datetime + zone info + timezone we need to have > a > > > test suite that verifies this. Otherwise we potentially expose our > users > > to > > > different behavior IN their data. Not just a schedule by in their SQL > or > > in > > > some scripting where logical date / execution date is used or where > date > > > arithmetic is applied. > > > > > > So it is not changing one car for another. It is changing the means of > > > transportation and not knowing if you can get to all the places you > want > > / > > > need to go as before. > > > > > > Honestly, I'm a bit scared (I do see the lack of responsiveness). I > hope > > > someone can take that away. > > > > > > Bolke > > > > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > > > On 1 Dec 2023, at 13:39, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Agree. I think this is the best way forward.- we have to bite the > > > bullet of > > > > potential backwards compatibility issues and separating out a compat > > > layer > > > > where we could optionally use pendulum instead would be the most > "easy" > > > > approach for our users. Most of them would not even notice if we do a > > > good > > > > job, but those who somehow depend on pendulum objects would get a > > > > possibility to switch back. > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 1:09 PM Andrey Anshin < > > [email protected]> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> IMHO, if we would like to replace pendulum to alternatives, the > better > > > >> alternative would be combination of datetime.datetime + zoneinfo + > > > >> datetime.timezone > > > >> > > > >> We still do hacks around pendulum functional, which makes hacks > around > > > >> datetime.datetime, so in my perspective better remove redundant > layers > > > and > > > >> use native objects directly. > > > >> > > > >> What confuses me the most is how we get around type changes in Tasks > > > >> Context. All dates return as pendulum.DateTime for a very long time > > > >> (literally for ages) and it is probably could be classified as > > breaking > > > >> changes, because it might break quite a bit users pipelines. It > still > > > could > > > >> be resolved as optional pendulum dependency + config option for > > datetime > > > >> types in context, which might help to get familiar types for a > while. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 05:58, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> "infamous fork of " should be "fork of infamous Akka" - just to be > > > clear > > > >> :) > > > >>> > > > >>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 2:57 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> It's a very rare occurrence that ASF accepts forks. Usually it has > > to > > > >> be > > > >>>> willingly donated by those who own the IP rights, - mainly because > > of > > > >>>> trademark issues. Licence is one thing, but carrying things like > the > > > >> name > > > >>>> of the project is not possible without clearing IP and donating > the > > > >>>> project. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> It happened last time last year - with Pekko project - infamous > fork > > > or > > > >>>> Akka after Lightbend changed licensing for Akka - > > > >>>> > > > >> > > https://www.lightbend.com/blog/why-we-are-changing-the-license-for-akka > > > >>>> making it impossible to be used in ASF projects with the new > > licence. > > > >> But > > > >>>> it was a really "strong" case and the "we do not accept forks > > usually" > > > >>> was > > > >>>> quite a contentious issue (I followed the discussion - it was > > > >> fascinating > > > >>>> actually). It tool a LOT of time and effort for those who led the > > > >> effort > > > >>>> eventually - and also mostly because things had to be > crystal-clear > > > and > > > >>> not > > > >>>> "litigable" because the other side had some business reasons to > make > > > >> the > > > >>>> licensing changes and they did not understood why it is impossible > > to > > > >> use > > > >>>> Akka as-is even with all the exclusions they offered to ASF - and > > > >>>> effectively it was a "hostile" move. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I don't think it's "worth" it in this case to be honest - > especially > > > if > > > >>>> the maintainers are effectively "silent" and seem to ignore > problems > > > of > > > >>> one > > > >>>> of the really serious users they have. If they were willing to > > > >> cooperate, > > > >>>> we could do a lot, but when we are left alone, I think it will be > > far > > > >>> more > > > >>>> convenient for us to look for alternatives - to be honest. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> J. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 2:46 AM Austin Bennett <[email protected] > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> An option would be to fork Pendulum? It is MIT Licensed, I don't > > > know > > > >>>>> whether that poses problems to get in ASF? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> If forking (?) which is somewhat non-ideal, would we want that > 'in' > > > >>>>> airflow? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> If not 'in' airflow, I wonder if ASF incubator would accept a > > forked > > > >>>>> project? [ anecdotally Linux Foundation has incubated Starrocks > > > which > > > >>> is > > > >>>>> a > > > >>>>> fork of Apache Doris, so there's precedence for this to be OK in > > the > > > >>> wider > > > >>>>> OSS ecosystem ]. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 6:41 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> > > > >> wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> I have not heard back from maintainers, just a comment from > > someone > > > >>> else > > > >>>>>> who suggested donating a pendulum to the ASF (which is kinda > > > >>> interesting > > > >>>>>> idea). I followed up, let's see. I think if we do not hear back > > and > > > >>>>> there > > > >>>>>> will be another week or two where "Pendulum 3 supporting 3.12 > > > >> support > > > >>>>> "is > > > >>>>>> coming" but no-one knows when, effectively means that we should > > look > > > >>>>> for an > > > >>>>>> alternative like NOW. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> J. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 3:27 AM Daniel Standish > > > >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Thanks Jarek > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 21, 2023, 4:34 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> I think we miss important insight - straight from the source. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> I believe it's time to be candid and simply ask questions for > > > >> the > > > >>>>>> future > > > >>>>>>> of > > > >>>>>>>> Pendulum directly where we should - ie. we should just ask > > > >>>>>> maintainers. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> I've just started a very candid and open discussion there - > > > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/sdispater/pendulum/discussions/771 . > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> I linked back to this discussion and explained where we are > > > >> coming > > > >>>>>> from. > > > >>>>>>> I > > > >>>>>>>> even offered an option, that maybe - if they accept some help > > > >> and > > > >>>>> would > > > >>>>>>> be > > > >>>>>>>> open to make a few of us maintainers of Pendulum, that I will > > > >> ask > > > >>> if > > > >>>>>> some > > > >>>>>>>> of the maintainers here in Airflow would like to step up (I > > > >> would > > > >>> be > > > >>>>>>>> willing to - for one) and help to at least move Pendulum > through > > > >>>>> 3.12 > > > >>>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>> maybe keep it running for as long as it will be needed to > > > >> maintain > > > >>>>> it. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> I think if they would be open to some of us helping them - > this > > > >>>>> might > > > >>>>>> be > > > >>>>>>>> actually the "cheapest" option for us to be honest at least > in a > > > >>>>>> mid-term > > > >>>>>>>> if we could gain influence and even take part and speed up > > > >>> releases > > > >>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>> merging of issues that are blocking us (or would be blocking > us > > > >> in > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>> future). > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> I tried to be very friendly but candid and direct on what kind > > > >> of > > > >>>>>>> problems > > > >>>>>>>> it creates us and also expressed our thanks for supporting us > > > >> for > > > >>> so > > > >>>>>> long > > > >>>>>>>> (I do believe they deserve it). I think the sole (pretty > much) > > > >>>>>>> maintainer > > > >>>>>>>> of Pendulum might really have a hard time maintaining and > > > >> keeping > > > >>>>> it up > > > >>>>>>> for > > > >>>>>>>> years - without being paid for and thanked. I hope - maybe all > > > >>> that > > > >>>>>> they > > > >>>>>>>> need are a few words of encouragement and thanks and realising > > > >>> that > > > >>>>>>> others > > > >>>>>>>> depend on their work - but also seeing that they are > understood, > > > >>>>>>> empathised > > > >>>>>>>> with and that there are viable alternatives they might follow > > > >>> might > > > >>>>> be > > > >>>>>>>> helpful for them to be also candid and respond. I hope my > > > >>> intentions > > > >>>>>> will > > > >>>>>>>> be understood - that I am not complaining, but even trying to > > > >>> help. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Let\s see where it gets us. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> J. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 5:32 PM Andrey Anshin < > > > >>>>>> [email protected]> > > > >>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Just to clarify I'd like us to consider the possibility that > > > >> no > > > >>>>> new > > > >>>>>>>>> pendulum would be released or released at the end of 2024, > > > >> like > > > >>> a > > > >>>>>>>>> pessimistic scenario: > > > >>>>>>>>> - What should we do in this case? > > > >>>>>>>>> - Work out a backup plan. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> ---- > > > >>>>>>>>> Best Wishes > > > >>>>>>>>> *Andrey Anshin* > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 at 16:33, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected] > > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Also I think TP - had a document in the past (years ago) > > > >>>>>>> describing a > > > >>>>>>>>>> draft of a more complete alternative we can take to approach > > > >>>>>> datetime > > > >>>>>>>> vs. > > > >>>>>>>>>> pendulum dichotomy. I cannot easily find the document and > > > >>>>>> discussion > > > >>>>>>> - > > > >>>>>>>>> but > > > >>>>>>>>>> I do remember it was proposing some interesting changes in > > > >> the > > > >>>>>>> approach > > > >>>>>>>>> of > > > >>>>>>>>>> Airflow to have an abstraction layer on top of it (as far > > > >> as I > > > >>>>>>>> remember). > > > >>>>>>>>>> Maybe we can resurrect that idea if TP might find the > > > >>> proposal ? > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 1:06 PM Bolke de Bruin < > > > >>>>> [email protected]> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi, > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I agree that the current speed of development of Pendulum > > > >>>>> leaves > > > >>>>>>>>>> something > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to be desired. However, I think we should not > > > >> underestimate > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>> effort > > > >>>>>>>>> of > > > >>>>>>>>>>> replacing it. It is not just a matter of > > > >>>>> %s/pendulum/datetime/g > > > >>>>>> so > > > >>>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>>> say. > > > >>>>>>>>>>> If we are *truly* thinking about moving to native > > > >> datetime / > > > >>>>>>> zoneinfo > > > >>>>>>>>> etc > > > >>>>>>>>>>> we need *extensive* tests, basically copying what pendulum > > > >>>>> does > > > >>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>> check > > > >>>>>>>>>>> its behavior. The reason is that native implementations in > > > >>> the > > > >>>>>> past > > > >>>>>>>>> made > > > >>>>>>>>>>> serious mistakes and I do not put a lot of trust in them. > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> An abstraction or vendoring in could be alternatives, but > > > >>> they > > > >>>>>>> bring > > > >>>>>>>>>> their > > > >>>>>>>>>>> own significant challenges. > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I have re-raised the issue here: > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/sdispater/pendulum/issues/753 > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The upside is that it seems the amount of issues with the > > > >>>>> beta is > > > >>>>>>>>>> limited, > > > >>>>>>>>>>> so hopefully the maintainers can spend a couple of cycles > > > >> to > > > >>>>>>> address > > > >>>>>>>>>> them. > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Bolke > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 at 10:28, Andrey Anshin < > > > >>>>>>>> [email protected]> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> There is no changes in stable pendulum so let's try to > > > >>>>> continue > > > >>>>>>>> this > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> discussion and start think about "Plan B" > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Just a reminder: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - pendulum 2.1.2 released 3 years ago (at the time > > > >> Airflow > > > >>>>>>> 1.10.x) > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - pendulum 2 doesn't work well in Python 3.12, this is a > > > >>>>>>>> showstopper > > > >>>>>>>>>> for > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the support Python 3.12 > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - pendulum 2 have memory leaks ( > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/sdispater/pendulum/issues/720), and > > > >>>>> Airflow > > > >>>>>>> use > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> approach > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to achieve this leaks, especially in K8S executor > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - pendulum 2 doesn't use system tzdata by default, but > > > >> we > > > >>>>> have > > > >>>>>> a > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> workaround, thanks Bolke for the documentation > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - pendulum it is a core dependency of Airflow, and I > > > >> guess > > > >>>>> we > > > >>>>>>> can't > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> remove/replace it without breaking changes. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> So my proposal if things won't change in the near future > > > >>>>> then > > > >>>>>> we > > > >>>>>>>> need > > > >>>>>>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> start removing the pendulum from the core and replace it > > > >>>>> with > > > >>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>> native > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> datetime / zoneinfo / tzinfo. But maybe we have another > > > >>> way > > > >>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>> resolve > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> without breaking changes? Because for me it would be a > > > >>>>> little > > > >>>>>>> weird > > > >>>>>>>>> if > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> removal pendulum would be a main driver for release > > > >>> Airflow > > > >>>>> 3 > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ---- > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Best Wishes > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> *Andrey Anshin* > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Sept 2023 at 13:01, Andrey Anshin < > > > >>>>>>>>> [email protected] > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This discussion is more about the known problem of > > > >>>>> pendulum > > > >>>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>> how > > > >>>>>>>>>> we > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> could deal with it and maybe how we (as Community) > > > >> might > > > >>>>> help > > > >>>>>>>>> autor. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The library is mostly supported by a single author > > > >>>>> Sébastien > > > >>>>>>>>> Eustace > > > >>>>>>>>>> ( > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/sdispater) and it seems like we > > > >> bump > > > >>>>> into > > > >>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> situation which is described in xkcd #2347 ( > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/dependency.png). To be > > > >>>>> honest > > > >>>>>> it > > > >>>>>>> is > > > >>>>>>>>> not > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> something new when library mainly supported by one > > > >>> author > > > >>>>> so > > > >>>>>>>> there > > > >>>>>>>>> is > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> always a risk that the library will no longer be > > > >>>>> supported / > > > >>>>>>>>>> abandoned > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> And if takes in account that pendulum provides core > > > >>>>>>> functionality > > > >>>>>>>>> in > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Airflow it could have dramatical impact in the future. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Pendulum is a really nice library which helps a lot of > > > >>>>>>> developers > > > >>>>>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>>>> work > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with dates/datetimes. However there is one major > > > >>> problem, > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>> last > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> release > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of this library happened more than 3 years ago ( > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://pypi.org/project/pendulum/#history) in the > > > >> time > > > >>>>> when > > > >>>>>>>>> Airflow > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.10.11 was released > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately, the project is not abandoned and on a > > > >>> regular > > > >>>>>>> basis > > > >>>>>>>>>>> commits > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> add into the master branch. However these commits are > > > >>> not > > > >>>>>>>> included > > > >>>>>>>>>> into > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> any > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> final release and that's why some things related to > > > >>>>> datetime > > > >>>>>>>> don't > > > >>>>>>>>>> work > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> as > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> expected in Airflow. There are list of known (for me) > > > >>>>> issues > > > >>>>>>>> which > > > >>>>>>>>>> are > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> affect Airflow > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> *Memory Leak on parse*: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://github.com/sdispater/pendulum/issues/720, > > > >>> this > > > >>>>> one > > > >>>>>>>> fixed > > > >>>>>>>>>> 2 > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> years ago but not available yet ( > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/sdispater/pendulum/pull/563). > > > >> Since > > > >>> we > > > >>>>>> use > > > >>>>>>>>> parse > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> dates > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in airflow codebase: datetime parameters and datetime > > > >> in > > > >>>>> logs > > > >>>>>>>> this > > > >>>>>>>>>> one > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> could be a reason for memory leakage in Airflow: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://github.com/apache/airflow/discussions/24694 > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://github.com/apache/airflow/discussions/28597 > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> *Incorrect time zones*, known issues and should be > > > >>> already > > > >>>>>>> fixed > > > >>>>>>>> in > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> master branch > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://github.com/sdispater/pendulum/issues/700, > > > >>>>> Mexico > > > >>>>>> do > > > >>>>>>>> not > > > >>>>>>>>>> use > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> DST > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anymore > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://github.com/sdispater/pendulum/issues/706, > > > >>> Egypt > > > >>>>>>>>> reinstate > > > >>>>>>>>>>> DST > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We add clarification in > > > >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/30467 > > > >>>>>>>>>> , > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> however it seems like there is no other way rather > > > >> than > > > >>>>>>> patching > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Pendulum > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> right now. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> All these issues should be solved as soon as pendulum > > > >> 3 > > > >>> is > > > >>>>>>>>> released. > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> current announced estimation is end of september/ > > > >>>>> beginning > > > >>>>>> of > > > >>>>>>>>>> October: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>> > > > > https://github.com/sdispater/pendulum/issues/600#issuecomment-1711299677 > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So in theory we would have a fixed version of pendulum > > > >>>>> soon, > > > >>>>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>> it > > > >>>>>>>>>>> might > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> break something in Airflow but from my point of view > > > >> it > > > >>> is > > > >>>>>>> better > > > >>>>>>>>>> than > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> current status. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> However there might be a situation where the release > > > >> of > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>> pendulum > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> would > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> be postponed, so maybe better to have a backup plan. > > > >>> What > > > >>>>>> could > > > >>>>>>>> we > > > >>>>>>>>> do > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> this case? > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should start to use zoneinfo.ZoneInfo instead > > > >>> of > > > >>>>>>>> pendulum > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> datetime? > > > >>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/19450 > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Pros: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> - stdlib (python 3.9+) > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> - In pendulum 3.0 Timezone based on zoneinfo.Zoneinfo > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Cons: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Current serialization model can't deal with backport > > > >>>>>>> packages. > > > >>>>>>>>> E.g. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> timezone which are serialized in backport_zoneinfo > > > >> can't > > > >>>>> be > > > >>>>>>>>>>> deserialized > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> zoneinfo > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should replace parse datetime with another > > > >>>>> solution. > > > >>>>>>>> Does > > > >>>>>>>>>>> anyone > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> know a good replacement? > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe someone from Airflow Community could propose > > > >> their > > > >>>>> help > > > >>>>>>>> with > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> maintenance of library: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://github.com/sdispater/pendulum/issues/590 > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should get rid of the pendulum at all, as a > > > >>> last > > > >>>>>>> resort > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> solution. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't imagine how we could do that, because a lot of > > > >>>>> stuff > > > >>>>>>>>> depends > > > >>>>>>>>>> on > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> pendulum and removing it would be a breaking change. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ---- > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Wishes > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> *Andrey Anshin* > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> -- > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> -- > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Bolke de Bruin > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > -- -- Bolke de Bruin [email protected]
