+0.5 (binding). (See https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting - for fractional votes).
A bit more comment here: See my last comment in the AIP. I am not sure if this is the right way but it's conditional +1. I love the idea, and proposal. Mostly because it will make DAG authoring more "modern" looking and remove a lot of confusion on where templating can be used. But we need to very carefully design the migration process for our users and make it easy and painless. While we have other breaking changes - those are mostly "environmental/deployment related" - but this one requires 9X% of DAGs of pretty much anyone who migrates to Airflow 3 to change their dags - possibly before in a transitional Airflow 2.11 version to be modified. Albeit the modifications can be automated). Initially when we discussed Airflow 3 there were a few voices telling "if a change will require changing DAGs in bulk - it's a non-go". This one changes the assumption - it will basically REQUIRE to change pretty much all the dags of Anyone who migrates to Airflow 3. I do not think any other change we propose has the same property so far - I think for now this is the only one that has such a big implication and requires a deliberate migration of all the DAGs. IF that change is accepted, it also means that the migration process involving DAG modifications has to be designed (because no other change requires it - with the exception of Task Isolation but this one has much less impact IMHO - and AIP-44 in Airflow 2 might actually help in the migration process). So IMHO - if we figure out exactly how incremental migrations should be done by our users in this case, I am all in. If we leave it to the users and do not provide suitable process/tooling/incremental approach they could take, this one might be a huge blocker (because of the risk that the users will have to take during migration). J. On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 10:00 AM Aritra Basu <aritrabasu1...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > -- > Regards, > Aritra Basu > > On Thu, 25 Jul 2024, 1:14 pm Tzu-ping Chung, <t...@astronomer.io.invalid> > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I’m calling for a vote on AIP-80: Explicit Template Fields in Operator > > Arguments. > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/2grOEg > > > > This proposal aims to improve how Airflow defines template fields, and > > help users avoid annoying pitfalls currently exist. > > > > Discussion thread: > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/yjcgb6fhn365n3307blq4y4v50gjynsy > > > > Please vote accordingly: > > > > [ ] +1 approve > > [ ] +0 no opinion > > [ ] -1 disapprove with the reason > > > > Votes from PMC members and committers are binding, but everyone in the > > community is also encouraged to vote. > > > > The vote will run for 5 days and last until 2024-07-30 8:00 UTC. > > > > Consider this as my vote as +1. > > > > TP >
