damnit --- meant to say is *not* strictly speaking .... On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 10:46 AM Daniel Standish < daniel.stand...@astronomer.io> wrote:
> Yeah I also disagree with code changes here. This thread went in an > unexpected direction since I last poked my head in :) > > My thought is just in docs I would de-emphasize the mathy part of this. > We can say a DAG is airflow's model for a collection of tasks that run, > typically on a schedule. We could say further add, e.g. in *one place* > somewhere, that the name DAG originated from a mathematical concept called > directed acyclic graph. But I do not think we need to go revising history > about that and providing new words for the acronym. > > But it has always been the reality that an Airflow DAG is strictly > speaking a directed acyclic graph. It's something different. We do forbid > cycles. And it does contain the info needed to construct a graph of the > tasks. But it's much richer than that concept as well. > > I don't think we really need to go much further than that. But I'd also > be in support of writing `dag` or `dags` in docs instead of DAG or DAGs > because it's ugly to do so, and unnecessary, and it invokes that mathy > concept that is both confusing and inadequate. > > >
