-0.25 to me continuing - I don't see the value long term in putting more effort into this, and any lessons from this have already been learnt, as development on Airflow 3 has already started, so this would literally be happening in parallel.
Given we are planning, at most, 1 or two more releases of Airflow 2 this feature will have to stay marked experimental so that it doesn't increase our support burden. My TL;Dr: I see this feature as a dead end now, but if you want to work on it by my guest, as long as it doesn't cause us more (support) work in the long term. -ash On 12 July 2024 14:20:14 BST, "Michał Modras" <michalmod...@google.com.INVALID> wrote: >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 :) >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org
