Yeah. I think if we have the operator compatibility and a way how we could just develop providers in "Airflow 3" mode that will keep automatically compatibility for Airlfow 2 (for a long-ish time) - I'd change my vote from +0.5 to +1. That would alleviate all my concerns.
On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 5:49 PM Shahar Epstein <sha...@apache.org> wrote: > +1 (binding) - it's an important feature IMO, and after reading the AIP and > the comments here - I think that TP's suggestion for compatibility and > migration mitigates the related concerns. > > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 10:44 AM 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 >
