Ech. I would love so much if we could correct sent email same way we can correct messages in Slack :D
On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 7:50 PM Daniel Standish <daniel.stand...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: > 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. > > > > > > >
