+1 non-binding
Regards, Vishnu Chilukoori On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 8:16 PM Pavankumar Gopidesu <gopid...@apache.org> wrote: > +1 binding > > Regards, > Pavan Kumar > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025, 01:35 Wei Lee <weilee...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > +1 binding > > > > Best, > > Wei > > > > > On Jan 22, 2025, at 9:12 AM, Phani Kumar <phani.ku...@astronomer.io > .invalid> > > wrote: > > > > > > +1 binding > > > > > > On Tue, 21 Jan, 2025, 13:55 Vikram Koka, <vik...@astronomer.io.invalid > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> +1 binding. > > >> > > >> Thank you Daniel Standish and TP for all the detailed work on this! > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 11:45 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> > wrote: > > >> > > >>> Just to clarify - both +1s from me and TP are binding - committer > votes > > >> are > > >>> binding on that one -> > > >>> > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#votes-on-code-modification > > >>> > > >>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 8:42 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> > wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> +1 > > >>>> > > >>>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 7:27 PM Tzu-ping Chung > > >> <t...@astronomer.io.invalid > > >>>> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> +1 from me > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> On 22 Jan 2025, at 00:22, Daniel Standish > > >>>>> <daniel.stand...@astronomer.io.INVALID> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Ok as described in discussion > > >>>>>> <https://lists.apache.org/thread/l3b3t9xhmyswscclt8b2wft4dpgslky1 > > > > >>>>> thread > > >>>>>> <https://lists.apache.org/thread/l3b3t9xhmyswscclt8b2wft4dpgslky1 > >, > > >> I > > >>>>> am > > >>>>>> calling for a vote on amendments to AIP-83. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> To recap, we discussed and debated various solutions in AIP-83 > > >>> amendment > > >>>>>> discussion doc <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/Ngv0Ew>. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Opinion coalesced around option 2, which we further refined in > > >> Option > > >>> 2 > > >>>>>> clarification doc <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/sokgF>. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Formally, this proposal is to amend AIP-83 so that uniqueness > > >>>>> constraint is > > >>>>>> restored on logical date and logical date is made nullable. > > >>>>> Additionally > > >>>>>> this proposal includes all details documented in these two > sections > > >> of > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>> option 2 clarification doc: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> - Uncontroversial elements section > > >>>>>> < > > >>>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=337676722#Option2clarificationdocWIP-Uncontroversialelements > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> - Resolution of questions section > > >>>>>> < > > >>>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=337676722#Option2clarificationdocWIP-Resolutionofquestions > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Voting will be open for 72 hours from now so, will close 8:30am > > >> Friday > > >>>>> Jan > > >>>>>> 24 2025. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> This is my +1 vote (binding). > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org > > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > >
