I think we should finish the AIP within Airflow 2 - it will take time until Airflow 3 is out, and I believe some learnings from finishing and running this AIP might be useful for Airflow 3. We plan to contribute to finishing this AIP.
On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 7:52 AM Scheffler Jens (XC-AS/EAE-ADA-T) <jens.scheff...@de.bosch.com.invalid> wrote: > 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 <+49%20711%2081191508> | Mobil +49 160 90417410 > <+49%20160%2090417410> | 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 :) >
