I think I like where the discussion took this. I was +0 on it based on my initial reading and generally don't vote unless I feel more strongly than that, but based on the direction the conversation is going, I like the issues that have been addressed and adjustments that are being made.
+1 (binding) - ferruzzi ________________________________ From: Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2024 9:48 AM To: dev@airflow.apache.org Subject: RE: [EXT] [VOTE] AIP-80: Explicit Template Fields in Operator Arguments CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. AVERTISSEMENT: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un expéditeur externe. Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si vous ne pouvez pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes pas certain que le contenu ne présente aucun risque. 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 >
