First of all - yes, agree with Lee and Ash, I think we do not need to change the public interface, I'd also be -0 on that, but docs, internal strings, yes we could.
But .... After thinking a bit and looking at the discussion here, where people have concerns, I have an alternative take. And I know this might be controversial, and some people might find it confusing, but why don't we come up with a new acronym for DAG, one that will be more airflow and less "mathematics/algorithm". And I have, I think a good reason for it, and I even have a proposal. Bear with me, DAG => *Data Airflow Graph* As many of us mentioned, DAG and Airflow are almost 100% 1-1 now (with exception of some niche products - you know which one I speak about - which are unfortunate enough to use the "Dag" in their name - I will explain why this is unfortunate, IMHO). We are lucky to have Airflow for "A" in the acronym and we can make it even more "synonymous" -> Airflow <> DAG with (A) being Airflow. Now, why I think "Directed Acyclic Graph" is unfortunate. Not only because "Directed" and "Acyclic" are mostly not in the vocabulary of most of our users - as Ryan, starting this thread explained yes, I agree with it, but also I think there is a more important reason - I simply believe in the future our DAGs might not (and likely will not) be "acyclic". I know for some it might be herezy and we have not discussed any of that yet, but more and more I keep on hearing that Machine Learning Workflows of the future are often somewhat cyclic. In our case there is one type of repeat-in-cycle behaviour - we have "task retry on failure" - but this is only on failure and it basically mens "idempotent" retry - we want to redo something and get single result out of that and basically discard the previous result. But machine learning/AI workflows are different. I had a lot of conversations recently (I even co-organized "AI low-level engineering and hacking" devroom to learn more about those) - and I keep on hearing that "Repeat a sequence of things several times and refine" is precisely what AI / ML workflows will need - especially with Agentic workflows - often we have cooperating agents which **could** be part of the same DAG, but currently in Airflow where our DAGs are "Acyclic" we can only express "repeat several time and refine" as a single task that will do such refining. If we would like to split such an "agent" doing their own work in "cycles" and communicating with other "agents" doing the same - represented as a multi-task-entity, we have no way to express it using our current "acyclic" semantics. But - other than our implementation makes that assumption currently - there is nothing fundamental with Airflow being able to run such "partially cyclic workflows". We have all the pieces, we would have to change dependency calculation to allow for cycles, update UI to handle cycles representation - and we could in theory quite seamlessly, support "cyclic" workflows. I know, I know, that's the first time we hear it and that's huge change - of course, I do not want to start discussing any details of it, not before Airflow 3.0 is out - but I think we should be open that at some point of time the "Acyclic" property is going to go away, And my personal intuition tells me that a year from now we will have acyclic workflows (assuming that all the foundational work we do on Airflow 3 will really help in decreasing all the technical dept, and will open our minds to new ideas). That's why I think - the sooner we get rid of "Directed Acyclic" - the better. that will - even for us, maintainer free us from being routed in the acyclic nature of Airflow. How about we change to "Data Airflow Graph" (or any other good acronym which has (A)irflow instead of (A)cyclic). The name is just a proposal. Now.. I go hide somewhere as I believe that might cause a "flamewar" :), unless on request of Ryan you already sheathed your swords in the discussion (which seems everyone did). But honestly - I would really love what you think of "let's just break with Acyclic NOW" and shape our future by using a different acronym. J. On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 10:54 AM Ephraim Anierobi <ephraimanier...@gmail.com> wrote: > When I started contributing to Airflow, I had to read up on DAG, and now I > know what it means. I wonder if we are about to have users who use the term > Dag without knowing that there's a DAG. > > Slightly concerned. > > -ephraim > > On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 at 10:26, Wei Lee <weilee...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > For user-facing things (e.g., `from airflow import DAG`), I’m more like > > -0. But for documentation, docstring, internal things and etc., we > probably > > could still change most of them? > > > > Best, > > Wei > > > > > On Feb 18, 2025, at 5:10 PM, Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > I also don’t personally think it’s worth the pain (not to mention > > backcompat workaround) to rename DAG to Dag, so I’d be -0.5 on that. > > > > > > -ash > > > > > >> On 18 Feb 2025, at 04:40, Daniel Imberman <daniel.imber...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> I think my biggest concern is a marketing one and not a technical one. > > >> > > >> As has been mentioned on the thread the terms airflow and dag are kind > > of > > >> synonymous and I certainly don’t want to give the impression that we > are > > >> breaking more than we are breaking. > > >> > > >> I wouldn’t die on this hill, but I’m slightly concerned. > > >> > > >> On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 6:00 PM Wei Lee <wei...@apache.org> wrote: > > >> > > >>> I’m not sure about adding ruff rules here 🤔 I think ruff rules are > > best > > >>> suited for user-facing things but not the airflow code base itself. > If > > what > > >>> we mean is adding a rule to avoid users using "DAG" *after* we rename > > it, > > >>> it's definitely a +1000. > > >>> > > >>> I just created GitHub issues for this removing "DAG" > > >>> > > >>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/46842 > > >>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/46843 > > >>> > > >>> One thing I'm not sure about is whether we want to get rid of `from > > >>> airflow import DAG` as well. 🤔 > > >>> > > >>> Best, > > >>> Wei > > >>> > > >>> On 2025/02/17 19:50:57 Jarek Potiuk wrote: > > >>>> Hard to say until it's looked at :) > > >>>> > > >>>> On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 8:45 PM Aritra Basu < > aritrabasu1...@gmail.com > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> I can take it up, it's mostly just a doc update right? Or are we > > doing > > >>> code > > >>>>> files replacement too? > > >>>>> -- > > >>>>> Regards, > > >>>>> Aritra Basu > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2025, 12:55 am Jarek Potiuk, <ja...@potiuk.com> > > wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Sounds like another +1000 files big PR is coming :) ? Any > volunteers > > >>> to > > >>>>>> make it ? It's fun. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 6:52 PM Omkar P <droiddev5...@gmail.com> > > >>> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> +1 for ruff rules :) > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Also would be nice to introduce 'Dag' to replace 'DAG' in the > > >>> Airflow > > >>>>>>> docs, in line with the new UI changes and to make the renaming > > >>>>>>> consistent across user-facing pages. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Regards, > > >>>>>>> Omkar > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 8:12 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> > > >>> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> +1 :) . Maybe we could add a ruff rule for that :) > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 8:27 AM Wei Lee <wei...@apache.org> > > >>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> It seems that our current conclusion is to use "dag" or "Dag" > > >>>>> instead > > >>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>> "DAG" whenever possible. Should we replace all "DAG" in the > > >>>>> codebase > > >>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>>> "dag" or "Dag"? If it's too late for that (which it might be > > >>> 🤔), > > >>>>>>> should > > >>>>>>>> we > > >>>>>>>>> at least avoid introducing new "DAG" in the following PRs? > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Best, > > >>>>>>>>> Wei > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On 2024/10/23 17:16:55 Brent Bovenzi wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> Here's a PR to use "dag" as a word in the new 3.0 UI: > > >>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/43325 > > >>>>>>>>>> Let me know if that's the direction we want to go. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 11:06 AM Bishundeo, Rajeshwar > > >>>>>>>>>> <rbish...@amazon.com.invalid> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I think Brent & Daniel summarized it best, "dag" is > > >>> synonymous > > >>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>>>>> workflows in Airflow through the way we talk and explain > > >>> what > > >>>>>>> Airflow > > >>>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>>>> all about. Although folks would ask, I don’t ever use the > > >>>>>>>> mathematical > > >>>>>>>>>>> definition of DAG. > > >>>>>>>>>>> It will be challenging and possibly confusing for many > > >>> users > > >>>>>> making > > >>>>>>>>> such a > > >>>>>>>>>>> change - I would rather direct that energy to appending the > > >>>>>> Oxford > > >>>>>>>>>>> definition of "dag" to include a reference to workflows in > > >>>>>> Airflow. > > >>>>>>>> __ > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> -- Rajesh > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-23, 3:37 AM, "Jarek Potiuk" <ja...@potiuk.com > > >>>>>> <mailto: > > >>>>>>>>>>> ja...@potiuk.com>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> 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. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> From Guido's post: > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> "Around this time the renaming seems to have been renamed". > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Naming is hard. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> J. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 7:11 AM Omkar P < > > >>>>> droiddev5...@gmail.com > > >>>>>>>>> <mailto: > > >>>>>>>>>>> droiddev5...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, completely agree with above comments, dag is an > > >>> Airflow > > >>>>>> term > > >>>>>>>> now > > >>>>>>>>>>>> rather > > >>>>>>>>>>>> than just a "directed acyclic graph". Believe it or not, > > >>> I've > > >>>>>>>> worked > > >>>>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>>>>>> work > > >>>>>>>>>>>> folks who've been using dags in Airflow for years now > > >>> and are > > >>>>>> pro > > >>>>>>>>> devs > > >>>>>>>>>>> but > > >>>>>>>>>>>> have trouble remembering the full form of a DAG! For > > >>> them, > > >>>>> dag > > >>>>>> = > > >>>>>>>>> Airflow. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> workflow, pipeline, flow are surely better terms but > > >>> will be > > >>>>> a > > >>>>>>>> major > > >>>>>>>>>>>> behavior > > >>>>>>>>>>>> change for the developer community, so we'll need a solid > > >>>>> plan > > >>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>>> how to > > >>>>>>>>>>>> introduce it, when we do. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> While we discuss this, I'd like to share about the Great > > >>>>>> Renaming > > >>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>> core > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Python started by Guido back in 2009. We could probably > > >>> get > > >>>>>> some > > >>>>>>>>>>> learnings > > >>>>>>>>>>>> from there? Who knows! > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Guido's blog (2009): > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>> > > https://python-history.blogspot.com/2009/03/great-or-grand-renaming.html > > >>>>>>>>>>> < > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>> > > https://python-history.blogspot.com/2009/03/great-or-grand-renaming.html > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Follow-up discussion (2024): > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>> https://discuss.python.org/t/finishing-the-great-renaming/54082 > > >>>>>>> < > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>> https://discuss.python.org/t/finishing-the-great-renaming/54082> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Omkar > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 7:10 AM Wei Lee < > > >>> weilee...@gmail.com > > >>>>>>>>> <mailto: > > >>>>>>>>>>> weilee...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should probably just accept it as an airflow > > >>>>> term. > > >>>>>>> At > > >>>>>>>>> least, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that’s how I understood it when I first used Airflow. I > > >>>>> feel > > >>>>>>>>> renaming > > >>>>>>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>>>>>> at > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> this stage would require considerable effort from > > >>>>> maintainers > > >>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>> existing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> users without providing equivalent benefits. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Wei > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 23, 2024, at 8:01 AM, Kaxil Naik < > > >>>>>> kaxiln...@gmail.com > > >>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:kaxiln...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same agreed with Brent & Daniel -- maybe we re-kindle > > >>>>> this > > >>>>>>>>> discussion > > >>>>>>>>>>>> for > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Airflow 4 :) -- but right now it will cause too much > > >>>>>>> disruption > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 at 21:27, Constance Martineau > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <consta...@astronomer.io.inva <mailto: > > >>>>>>>>> consta...@astronomer.io.inva>lid> > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In my experience, when you ask those with Airflow > > >>>>>> experience > > >>>>>>>>> what a > > >>>>>>>>>>>> dag > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> is, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they'll start talking about workflow attributes - > > >>> stuff > > >>>>>> like > > >>>>>>>>> dags > > >>>>>>>>>>>> being > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> series of steps or tasks with owners. The structure > > >>>>>> doesn't > > >>>>>>>>> come up. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Echo-ing others, at this point, my vote is to > > >>> embrace > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>>> name > > >>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> de-emphasize the mathematical structure aspect. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 3:47 PM Vikram Koka > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <vik...@astronomer.io.inva <mailto: > > >>>>> vik...@astronomer.io.inva > > >>>>>>>>> lid> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's an interesting discussion and I remember > > >>>>> struggling > > >>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>>> this > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> when I > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> started working with Airflow. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, I also agree with the viewpoint of it being an > > >>>>>>>> established > > >>>>>>>>>>>> concept > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of the origin. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am personally leaning towards the perspective > > >>> best > > >>>>>>>> expressed > > >>>>>>>>> by > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Standish and Brent of using Dag as a word, rather > > >>> than > > >>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>> computer > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concept. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vikram > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 9:46 AM Oliveira, Niko > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <oniko...@amazon.com.inva <mailto: > > >>>>>> oniko...@amazon.com.inva > > >>>>>>>>> lid > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with the general sentiment of: You're > > >>> right > > >>>>>> Ryan, > > >>>>>>>> DAG > > >>>>>>>>>>> isn't > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> great > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I'd rather workflow, but changing it will > > >>> cause > > >>>>> much > > >>>>>>>> more > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wreckage > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it solves. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also agree with the idea to just move away from > > >>>>> defining > > >>>>>>>> DAG. > > >>>>>>>>> I > > >>>>>>>>>>>> think > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we've been naturally doing that as a community > > >>> for a > > >>>>>> while > > >>>>>>>> now > > >>>>>>>>>>>> anyway, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that feels like a natural step. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Niko > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________ > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org <mailto: > > >>>>>>>>> a...@apache.org>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2024 9:06:39 AM > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@airflow.apache.org <mailto: > > >>>>>> dev@airflow.apache.org > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [EXT] Airflow should deprecate the > > >>> term > > >>>>>> "DAG" > > >>>>>>>>> for end > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best argument in favour of keeping “dags” as a > > >>> term — > > >>>>>>>> getting > > >>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> re-use > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> puns like https://i.imgflip.com/1xhtwh.jpg < > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://i.imgflip.com/1xhtwh.jpg> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In all seriousness: I don’t mind either way, both > > >>>>> sides > > >>>>>>> have > > >>>>>>>>> good > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22 Oct 2024, at 17:03, Daniel Standish > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <daniel.stand...@astronomer.io.inva <mailto: > > >>>>>>>>>>> daniel.stand...@astronomer.io.inva>LID> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah just say, when asked where the name comes > > >>> from, > > >>>>>>> "well, > > >>>>>>>>> no > > >>>>>>>>>>> one > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knows but..." and then make something up. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 8:31 AM Jarek Potiuk < > > >>>>>>>>> ja...@potiuk.com > > >>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:ja...@potiuk.com>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just to clarify - "directed acyclic graph" is > > >>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>> tongue-twister, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 5:29 PM Jarek Potiuk < > > >>>>>>>>> ja...@potiuk.com > > >>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:ja...@potiuk.com>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like what both Daniel and Brent wrote. I > > >>> would > > >>>>> very > > >>>>>>>> much > > >>>>>>>>> want > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to say just "dag" without explaining it > > >>> further. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For me every time I explain "DAG" at a talk > > >>> it's a > > >>>>>>>>>>>> tongue-twister, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost stutter on trying to recall how to > > >>> pronounce > > >>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>>>>> properly. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> J. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 5:27 PM Brent Bovenzi > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <br...@astronomer.io.inva <mailto: > > >>>>>>>> br...@astronomer.io.inva > > >>>>>>>>>> lid> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I remember we explored renaming "DAG" when > > >>>>> starting > > >>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>>> AIP-38 > > >>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modernize > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the UI. Both "pipeline" or "workflow" are more > > >>>>>>>>> descriptive of > > >>>>>>>>>>>> what > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually doing while Directed Acyclic Graph > > >>> is an > > >>>>>>>>>>> implementation > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detail. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I agree with Daniel Standish, at this > > >>> point > > >>>>>> "DAG" > > >>>>>>>> has > > >>>>>>>>>>> become > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "dag" > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> , a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> word in its own right. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Examples for "dag" are abound in community > > >>>>>> discussion, > > >>>>>>>>> Airflow > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Summit > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talks, documentation and even in the UI. Let's > > >>>>>> embrace > > >>>>>>>>> "dag". > > >>>>>>>>>>> A > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs to learn one new word vs the technical > > >>>>> concept > > >>>>>>>>> behind > > >>>>>>>>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> word. I > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think that is much less effort than > > >>> refactoring so > > >>>>>>> much > > >>>>>>>>> code, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> documentation, blog posts, stack overflow > > >>>>> questions, > > >>>>>>>> etc. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 10:51 AM Daniel > > >>> Standish > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <daniel.stand...@astronomer.io.inva <mailto: > > >>>>>>>>>>> daniel.stand...@astronomer.io.inva>lid> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am skeptical. Seems like introducing a lot > > >>> of > > >>>>>> pain > > >>>>>>>> for > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questionable > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefit. But, I am def sympathetic to the > > >>> idea. I > > >>>>>>> agree > > >>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> association > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with "directed acyclic graph" is not helpful. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And along those lines, I offer here some less > > >>>>>>> invasive > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mitigations. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One thing we can do no matter what is to > > >>>>>> de-emphasize > > >>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>> math > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nerd > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> origins > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the name. That is to say, in docs / > > >>> website / > > >>>>>> etc, > > >>>>>>>>> *never > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> define* > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> airflow's "dag" concept as a directed acyclic > > >>>>>> graph. > > >>>>>>>>> Always > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> define > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline, collection of tasks, workflow etc. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "directed acyclic graph" part of it is > > >>> like a > > >>>>>>>>> historical > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> footnote, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we could make one mention of it somewhere > > >>> hidden. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We could also start using lowercase in the > > >>> docs > > >>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>> general > > >>>>>>>>>>> e.g. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> writing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "dag" / "dags" instead of writing "DAG" / > > >>> "DAGs" > > >>>>>> etc. > > >>>>>>>> The > > >>>>>>>>>>>> upper > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of it makes it look like an acronym; but > > >>> "dag" in > > >>>>>>>>> airlfow is > > >>>>>>>>>>>> just > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> airflow concept and the association with > > >>> "DAGs" > > >>>>> is > > >>>>>>> not > > >>>>>>>>> really > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unhelpful. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words embrace that "dag" in airflow > > >>> is > > >>>>> its > > >>>>>>> own > > >>>>>>>>>>> thing, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *not* strictly > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaking a directed acyclic graph (which > > >>> nobody > > >>>>>> knows > > >>>>>>>>> about > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyway), > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tell them what it is in simple terms that > > >>> normal > > >>>>>>> people > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 7:27 AM Jarek Potiuk > > >>> < > > >>>>>>>>>>> ja...@potiuk.com <mailto:ja...@potiuk.com> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DAG is so embedded into what we do that it > > >>> will > > >>>>> be > > >>>>>>>>> extremely > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difficult to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get rid of it completely. Also I think it > > >>> will > > >>>>>> make > > >>>>>>> a > > >>>>>>>>> lot of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "google" > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> searches and "stack overflow" searches not > > >>>>> finding > > >>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>> right > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is one of the strengths of Airflow - > > >>> besides the > > >>>>>>>>> community > > >>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bernd mentioned - is the vast number of > > >>>>> examples, > > >>>>>>>>> problems > > >>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solutions > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can so easily find (and we have to > > >>> remember > > >>>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>> all the > > >>>>>>>>>>>> AI > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trained > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past data will be also rather poorly > > >>> matching > > >>>>>>> queries > > >>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>> people. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not too attached to DAG. I could easily > > >>>>>> switch. > > >>>>>>>>> And if > > >>>>>>>>>>> we > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be for using workflow or pipeline > > >>> instead > > >>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>> `dag` if > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason, but I think I am here with Igor > > >>> that it > > >>>>>>> might > > >>>>>>>>> cause > > >>>>>>>>>>>> more > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than it solves. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I am not 100% against - if others will > > >>> think > > >>>>>>> it's > > >>>>>>>> a > > >>>>>>>>> good > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea, I > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ok > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with it. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> J, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 3:12 PM Abhishek > > >>> Bhakat > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <abhishek.bha...@astronomer.io.inva > > >>> <mailto: > > >>>>>>>>>>> abhishek.bha...@astronomer.io.inva>lid> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Agreed that the word DAG makes very less > > >>> sense > > >>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>> someone > > >>>>>>>>>>> new > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> workflow > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orchestration. But it does also show the > > >>> nature > > >>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>> being > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acyclic. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bas mentioned, there are ways to > > >>> workaround it. > > >>>>>>>> Still, > > >>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>> my > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is generally no need for cyclic behavior in > > >>>>>>> workflow > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orchestration. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (*if > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not all*) cases can be in some way can be > > >>>>> covered > > >>>>>>>>> using an > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acyclic > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manner > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with multiple runs. Hence, the > > >>> idempotency. So > > >>>>> I > > >>>>>>>> would > > >>>>>>>>> want > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "acyclic" > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> word to stick. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Avi > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 12:41 PM < > > >>>>>>>>>>> bernd.stroe...@kosakya.de <mailto: > > >>> bernd.stroe...@kosakya.de>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brilliant, I am on the way to become an > > >>>>> Airflow > > >>>>>>> Fan; > > >>>>>>>>> so > > >>>>>>>>>>> many > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Term DAG is misleading; it should be > > >>>>>> replaced > > >>>>>>> by > > >>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>> more > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Term > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Airflow (Workflow) Graph (AFG) or Airflow > > >>>>>> (Petri) > > >>>>>>>> Net > > >>>>>>>>>>> (AFN) > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (maybe > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a direction); > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and ... these Graphs should be stored in a > > >>>>> Graph > > >>>>>>>>> Database. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every Node or Sup-Graph of an Airflow > > >>> Graph > > >>>>>> (AFG) > > >>>>>>>>> might be > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assigned > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executable (Python-, Rust-, ... ) member > > >>> of a > > >>>>>>>> library. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A running Graph might have a different > > >>>>> structure > > >>>>>>>> than > > >>>>>>>>> a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Graph. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Forget that if you think it's bullshit. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bernd Ströhle > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> M: +49 171 5357916 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E: bernd.stroe...@gmail.com <mailto: > > >>>>>>>>>>> bernd.stroe...@gmail.com> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Igor Kholopov > > >>> <ikholo...@google.com.inva > > >>>>>>>>> <mailto: > > >>>>>>>>>>> ikholo...@google.com.inva>LID> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2024 12:02 PM > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@airflow.apache.org <mailto: > > >>>>>>>>> dev@airflow.apache.org > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Airflow should deprecate the > > >>> term > > >>>>>>> "DAG" > > >>>>>>>>> for > > >>>>>>>>>>> end > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even though the term "DAG" is clearly > > >>>>>> suboptimal, > > >>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>>>> part > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Airflow > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DAG definition interface at so many > > >>> levels, > > >>>>> that > > >>>>>>> any > > >>>>>>>>>>> attempt > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will only introduce more chaos, not > > >>> reduce it. > > >>>>>> The > > >>>>>>>>> only > > >>>>>>>>>>>> thing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worse > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than a poorly chosen name in the code is > > >>> when > > >>>>>>> there > > >>>>>>>>> are > > >>>>>>>>>>> two > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ways > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> define > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same thing. Countless articles and > > >>>>> tutorials > > >>>>>>>> will > > >>>>>>>>>>>> suddenly > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confusing as they all refer to workflows > > >>> as > > >>>>>>> "DAG"s. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are already at risk of scaring the > > >>> users > > >>>>> away > > >>>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>>> a > > >>>>>>>>>>>> number > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> breaking > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes in Airflow 3, promising even more > > >>>>>> breaking > > >>>>>>>>> changes > > >>>>>>>>>>>> for > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basic things is not something that people > > >>> are > > >>>>>>>> looking > > >>>>>>>>> for. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Attempting > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change the fundamental terms will be > > >>>>> interpreted > > >>>>>>> as > > >>>>>>>> an > > >>>>>>>>>>> even > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stronger > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signal > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of project immaturity. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given that, I oppose the idea of changing > > >>> the > > >>>>>> term > > >>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>> long > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> run. I > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stricter oppose the idea of deprecating > > >>> it in > > >>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> DAG > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We better put our time and efforts in > > >>> other > > >>>>>> places > > >>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Airflow, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are plenty. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kind regards, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igor > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 10:36 AM Bas > > >>> Harenslak > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <b...@astronomer.io.inva <mailto: > > >>>>>>>> b...@astronomer.io.inva > > >>>>>>>>>> lid > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Couple of thoughts: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The boundaries/properties of “DAG” > > >>> have > > >>>>>>> already > > >>>>>>>>> faded > > >>>>>>>>>>>> over > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for example there are now several ways to > > >>>>>> create > > >>>>>>>>> cyclic > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> graphs, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e.g. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using the @continuous schedule. I imagine > > >>>>> these > > >>>>>>>>>>> properties > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vanishing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even more in the future, so from that > > >>>>>>> perspective I > > >>>>>>>>>>> support > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “DAG" to a more generic name. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. How other orchestration frameworks do > > >>>>>> naming: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dagster: pipeline > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prefect: flow > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flyte: workflow > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Temporal: workflow > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kestra: flow > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think “workflow” is the most fitting > > >>> name. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Given the large impact of this > > >>> change, I > > >>>>>>> suggest > > >>>>>>>>>>>> defining > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> path forward. Would we first introduce > > >>> the > > >>>>>>>>> deprecation in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Airflow > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and remove “DAG” in Airflow 4? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bas > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22 Oct 2024, at 09:22, Neil < > > >>>>>>>> neil4r...@gmail.com > > >>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:neil4r...@gmail.com>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see a problem with the term DAG, > > >>>>>>>> especially > > >>>>>>>>> when > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> platforms embrace the term > > >>> wholeheartedly. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see anything intimidating or > > >>>>> confusing > > >>>>>>>>> about it > > >>>>>>>>>>> at > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changing the term though would be fairly > > >>>>>>> confusing > > >>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>> most > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the term for years. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 1:18 AM Tzu-ping > > >>>>> Chung > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <t...@astronomer.io.inva <mailto: > > >>>>>>>>> t...@astronomer.io.inva > > >>>>>>>>>>>> lid > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I totally agree with doing away with > > >>> the > > >>>>> term > > >>>>>>>> DAG. > > >>>>>>>>> The > > >>>>>>>>>>>> only > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (aside > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from actually telling people—including > > >>>>>>> myself—to > > >>>>>>>>> stop > > >>>>>>>>>>>> using > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> term) > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> come up with a reasonable alternative. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can’t recall who, but someone > > >>> mentioned > > >>>>>>>>> “workflow” is > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accurate > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for Airflow. The term “definition” was > > >>>>>>> proposed, > > >>>>>>>>> but > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it’s a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> broad; I tried to use it in a few > > >>> places > > >>>>> and > > >>>>>>> kept > > >>>>>>>>>>> finding > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> myself > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doubting “what definition?” and > > >>> wanting to > > >>>>>>>> clarify > > >>>>>>>>> “DAG > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition” > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (defeating the purpose). > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TP > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22 Oct 2024, at 13:07, Jens > > >>> Scheffler > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <j_scheff...@gmx.de.inva <mailto: > > >>>>>>>>>>> j_scheff...@gmx.de.inva>LID> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ryan, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for posting. I share the > > >>> exactly > > >>>>> same > > >>>>>>>>>>>> observation, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> short > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laight because the DAG question is > > >>> always > > >>>>> an > > >>>>>>>>>>> introduction > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> joins > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the party. I think a global renaming > > >>> makes > > >>>>>>> sense. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Especially > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rename Dataset to Asset this is also a > > >>>>>>> reasonable > > >>>>>>>>> step. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Concepts > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stay the same. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I hope I don‘t need to join hiding > > >>>>> below > > >>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>> desk > > >>>>>>>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> raising the discussion. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Technically we can still think if we > > >>> keep > > >>>>>>>> details > > >>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> python > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> names > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same because the execution is still a > > >>> DAG… > > >>>>>> but > > >>>>>>>> user > > >>>>>>>>>>>> facing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> workflow. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jens > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Smartphone > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21. Oct 2024, at 23:56, Ryan > > >>> Hatter < > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ryan.hat...@astronomer.io <mailto: > > >>>>>>>>> ryan.hat...@astronomer.io > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .invalid> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone please sheathe your > > >>> swords... at > > >>>>>>> least > > >>>>>>>>> for > > >>>>>>>>>>>> now. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The term "DAG" has very little > > >>> meaning to > > >>>>>>>> Airflow > > >>>>>>>>>>>> users. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little meaning outside of some > > >>>>>> mathematicians > > >>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> engineers > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whom the properties of a DAG actually > > >>>>>> matter. > > >>>>>>>> For > > >>>>>>>>>>>> someone > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data engineering or workflow > > >>>>> orchestration, > > >>>>>>> one > > >>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions they > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely have is, "what on earth is a > > >>> DAG?" > > >>>>>> The > > >>>>>>>>> answer > > >>>>>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always, "It's a directed acyclic > > >>> graph. > > >>>>> You > > >>>>>>>> don't > > >>>>>>>>>>> need > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worry > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about what > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means; it's just a term for your > > >>>>> workflow." > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The term "DAG" is problematic for at > > >>>>> least > > >>>>>> a > > >>>>>>>>> couple > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Complexity for New Users*: As > > >>> mentioned > > >>>>>>> above, > > >>>>>>>>> "DAG" > > >>>>>>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unnecessarily intimidating and > > >>> confusing. > > >>>>>> We > > >>>>>>>> want > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Airflow > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approachable, and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical jargon like "DAG" right > > >>> off the > > >>>>>> bat > > >>>>>>>>> creates > > >>>>>>>>>>>> an > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initial > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> barrier to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Disconnect Between DAG and Workflow > > >>>>>>> Concepts*: > > >>>>>>>>> The > > >>>>>>>>>>> DAG > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one component of an Airflow > > >>> workflow. The > > >>>>>>>>> workflow > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schedule, retries, timeouts, a dozen > > >>>>> other > > >>>>>>>>>>> parameters, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metadata that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DAG component doesn’t account for. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consider the following from the > > >>> Airflow > > >>>>>>>> homepage > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://airflow.apache.org/> < > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://airflow.apache.org/>>. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache Airflow® is a platform > > >>> created by > > >>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>> community > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programmatically > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> author, schedule and monitor > > >>> workflows. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, if we look at the "What is > > >>>>> Airflow?" > > >>>>>>> docs > > >>>>>>>>> page > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> < > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>> https://airflow.apache.org/docs/apache-airflow/stable/index.html < > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>> https://airflow.apache.org/docs/apache-airflow/stable/index.html > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> , > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see that the docs explain what > > >>> Airflow is > > >>>>>>>> without > > >>>>>>>>>>> using > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "DAG." > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the *workflow* Python code that the > > >>> term > > >>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>>>> introduced > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comment that awkwardly tries to > > >>> explain > > >>>>> it: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> # A DAG represents a workflow, a > > >>>>> collection > > >>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>> tasks > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It makes sense to not refer to DAGs > > >>> in > > >>>>>> these > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introductions > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Airflow, because *Airflow doesn't > > >>>>>> orchestrate > > >>>>>>>>> DAGs; > > >>>>>>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orchestrates > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> workflows*. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DAG is the model that, for reasons > > >>>>>> irrelevant > > >>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>> almost > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user, workflows must adhere to. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I propose at least adding an > > >>> alias > > >>>>> for > > >>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>> term > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "DAG" > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> updating documentation to replace > > >>> "DAG" > > >>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "workflow". > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, instead of... > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @dag( > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schedule="@daily", > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dagrun_timeout=timedelta(hours=1) > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ) > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Users could do... > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @workflow( > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schedule="@daily", > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> run_timeout=timedelta(hours=1) > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ) > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And with that... I will start running > > >>>>> away. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org <mailto: > > >>>>>>>>>>> dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dev-h...@airflow.apache.org <mailto: > > >>>>>>>>>>> dev-h...@airflow.apache.org> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org > > > > >
