Distributed makes more sense to me. +1 binding on this one. Remote executor is too broad to me
On 2024/08/27 14:43:33 Jarek Potiuk wrote: > I prefer distributed - as Remote executor is already a well-established > term. But this is -0.5 on "remote" - if others think it's ok, I am fine. > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 3:33 PM Scheffler Jens (XC-AS/EAE-ADA-T) > <jens.scheff...@de.bosch.com.invalid> wrote: > > > Hi Airflow-Devs, > > > > AIP-69 has come as MVP to the front-door of the repo in form of 3 PRs. But > > as in the Voting there has been a bit of discussion about how we call that > > "baby" I'd like to have a wrap-up about the name and see what the majority > > is for. > > > > The AIP-69 defined the implementation as "Remote Executor" but the exact > > term is used in the Airflow docs today for all non-local executors. It > > might be short but could lead to confusion. > > > > I'd like to ask for a 48h collection of opinions about the options: > > > > > > 1. keep it as "Remote Executor" (and adjust the docs to name all > > non-local executors to be "distributed") > > 2. use "Distributed Executor" as provider and tool name, docs cli etc > > for AIP-69 > > 3. Throw in other ideas of names > > > > This is not a formal vote but please respond with +1/0/-1 > > binding/non-binding until Aug 29th 2024 4PM CEST. > > > > My opinion is: > > A: +1 binding as it is short and was the original name with the AIP posted. > > B: 0 binding - can live with this if majority likes it > > C: no better ideas that I can bring up. HTTP is too technical. A funny > > name could be "AnyWhere" but nobody will understand. > > > > Jens > > > > PS: besides the naming looking forward for CODE reviews/approvers in PRs > > #41729,41730,41731 😀 > > > > Sent from Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org
