+1 non binding On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 11:04 PM Oliveira, Niko <oniko...@amazon.com.invalid> wrote:
> +1 (binding) > > ________________________________ > From: Wei Lee <weilee...@gmail.com> > Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2024 5:24:54 PM > To: dev@airflow.apache.org > Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [COURRIEL EXTERNE] [VOTE] Accept AIP-60 (Standard > URI representation for Airflow Datasets) > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not > click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know > the content is safe. > > > > AVERTISSEMENT: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un expéditeur externe. > Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si vous ne pouvez > pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes pas certain que > le contenu ne présente aucun risque. > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > Best, > Wei > > > On Jan 22, 2024, at 8:16 AM, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > > > +1 (binding). > > > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 12:38 AM Igor Kholopov > <ikholo...@google.com.invalid> > > wrote: > > > >> +1 (non-binding) > >> > >> On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 12:03 AM Maciej Obuchowski < > mobuchow...@apache.org > >>> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> +1 (non-binding) > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jan 18, 2024, 22:51 Scheffler Jens (XC-AS/EAE-ADA-T) > >>> <jens.scheff...@de.bosch.com.invalid> wrote: > >>> > >>>> +1 binding as discussed - looking forward for this and THANKS! > >>>> > >>>> Sent from Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> > >>>> ________________________________ > >>>> From: Tzu-ping Chung <t...@astronomer.io.INVALID> > >>>> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2024 9:07:42 AM > >>>> To: dev@airflow.apache.org <dev@airflow.apache.org> > >>>> Subject: [VOTE] Accept AIP-60 (Standard URI representation for Airflow > >>>> Datasets) > >>>> > >>>> AIP page: > >>>> > >>> > >> > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcwiki.apache.org%2Fconfluence%2Fdisplay%2FAIRFLOW%2FAIP-60%2BStandard%2BURI%2Brepresentation%2Bfor%2BAirflow%2BDatasets&data=05%7C02%7CJens.Scheffler%40de.bosch.com%7Cfeb80ec5aa4b4fa99c7a08dc17fc9ae4%7C0ae51e1907c84e4bbb6d648ee58410f4%7C0%7C0%7C638411620901637967%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ZJ3XtYmB5k5NsO%2Ft%2F05QSxH9CIrYEiP4td09LZZ8rcI%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> < > >>>> > >>> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-60+Standard+URI+representation+for+Airflow+Datasets > >>>>> > >>>> Discussion thread: > >>>> > >>> > >> > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.apache.org%2Fthread%2Frf6c80ljjkml0l15h2jys7k713q3os1d&data=05%7C02%7CJens.Scheffler%40de.bosch.com%7Cfeb80ec5aa4b4fa99c7a08dc17fc9ae4%7C0ae51e1907c84e4bbb6d648ee58410f4%7C0%7C0%7C638411620901637967%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=QQqR1gaRDfC9udbGbMubPfkyt73jSUmB7uPU%2BukCE2s%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> <https://lists.apache.org/thread/rf6c80ljjkml0l15h2jys7k713q3os1d> > >>>> > >>>> Reaction on the proposal seems to mostly positive, with most comments > >>>> around what documentation should be added, and the exact criteria the > >> AIP > >>>> should be considered “done”. I believe I have addressed most of them; > >>> most > >>>> notably, additional sentences have been added to the What defines this > >>> AIP > >>>> as "done"? section to require the best practice to be demonstrated by > >>>> example DAGs and tutorials in the documentation. > >>>> > >>>> One comment I left unaddressed is about auto-generating documentation > >>> from > >>>> providers. This is mostly because I’m not quite sure how it can be > >>>> practical. We can generate a list of supported protocols (s3, gcs, > >> file, > >>>> etc.), but that is not particularly useful to users without the actual > >>>> format the URI would use. In the current implementation, each URI > >> handler > >>>> is a simple Python function, and it is not viable to extract logic > from > >>> it > >>>> unless we adopt some kind of rule-based parser (like regex, and even > >> that > >>>> is too complex to automatically generate documentation from). I am > open > >>> to > >>>> suggestions on this, so feel free to give a -1 with an idea on this. > >>>> Otherwise I would move the proposal forward without auto documentation > >>>> generation. > >>>> > >>>> This vote will be kept open for more than 72 hours even if three +1s > >> are > >>>> reached, to gather potential ideas on the documentation thing > mentioned > >>>> above. I intend to start implementation (including the example DAGs) > in > >>> the > >>>> mean time. > >>>> > >>>> TP > >>>> > >>> > >> > >
