Hi, I'd favor to make it usable - especially as we are at 80%.
Main motivation is that with our environment we see stability problems with the distributed setup and using Celery, which was the main motivation to spin the discussion about AIP-69. AIP-69 is depending on the feature. Waiting another 12-18 months to be able to host a stable distributed setup based on Airflow 3 is something hard to argue. And I can confirm it is working already in my AIP-69 PoC. In this light I could offer to move it to at least the level that it can be used and is properly CI tested as using it for AIP-69 as first consumer (which could reduce the scope to task execution, DAG parsing and triggered could be taken out-of-scope for AIP-69 dependency for example). I could offer supporting to close the gaps to completion. In regards of workload the completion should be a target before the cut-off to Airflow 3, so I would assume only "keeping the lights on" would be a distraction while developing Airflow 3. Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards Jens Scheffler Alliance: Enabler - Tech Lead (XC-AS/EAE-ADA-T) Robert Bosch GmbH | Hessbruehlstraße 21 | 70565 Stuttgart-Vaihingen | GERMANY | www.bosch.com Tel. +49 711 811-91508 | Mobil +49 160 90417410 | jens.scheff...@de.bosch.com Sitz: Stuttgart, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 14000; Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Prof. Dr. Stefan Asenkerschbaumer; Geschäftsführung: Dr. Stefan Hartung, Dr. Christian Fischer, Dr. Markus Forschner, Stefan Grosch, Dr. Markus Heyn, Dr. Frank Meyer, Dr. Tanja Rückert -----Original Message----- From: Jed Cunningham <jedcunning...@apache.org> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2024 10:41 PM To: dev@airflow.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] To AIP-44 or not to AIP-44 It feels a little weird to add a new "forever" experimental feature in Airflow 2 that we already know won't be there in Airflow 3. Not something I'd want to be really user facing at this point in time either. Given the short timeline for Airflow 3, I imagine we'd be better off spending those cycles elsewhere. My 2c - not my cycles :)
