I’m not sure conflating your opinion on this with “it’s just good engineering to make things blurry sometimes” creates a logical truth.
:-) On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 12:41 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > Oh no.. Swords, swords, .... :) > > Hello Brian ! Nice to see you back in the conversations. We've been > discussing things like this before a few times even over the phone, I > recall. > > Yes, I think it's partially marketing, I agree. And marketing that is > important for the project, which we as engineers, should also at least > understand. We should worry about how our work is perceived by > non-engineers or at least not-so-much-deep-into-technical-correctness > engineers who just want to get stuff done. This is at least my goal of > "communicating" such stuff through documentation - recognise that the vast > majority of our users just want to get things done and don't really care > about abstract mathematical concepts, they might not even be aware of. Our > role in this project is not to teach people math or algorithmics, but to > help them do their job. That's our primary goal. > > And to that - more importantly (for the reasons i and Constance explained) > we **might** soon not have "technically Directed Acyclic Graphs" - we do > not know if we go that route, but IMHO, it's likely. Then from a good > engineering point of view, figuring a better name that would ease the > transition is not only smart, but also fair, and it will make our life > easier, I am not a fan of being "100% precise and correct" if it makes my > future life harder. As an experienced engineer I am happy to go down the > path of making definitions more blurry, if it is still "good definition" - > fitting the purpose, and making it easier to transition to the place where > the old definition will no longer be true. > > That's what I consider being a great engineer is - to not only focus on > minute details and definition correctness, but also understanding of my > users, communicating with them in the way that makes it easier for them to > relate to the project and "do their job", and to foresee and clear the path > for future evolution of my product. > > I hope this explanation can provide a bit more context - at least how I > understand it, and I hope you will see it's not a "because we want it" > change. It has some real grounding, reasoning, expectations and is > something that few of us have been thinking about for a while. So please do > not see it as "marketing driven" change. For me it's "engineering driven > change that takes into account marketing". > > J. > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 7:20 PM Brian Greene < > br...@heisenbergwoodworking.com> wrote: > > > I disagree with renaming it, or removing the logical idea of directed > > acyclic graph, or redefining the acronym. It’s less “math” to me, and > more > > “data structure”, and a lot of things work the way they do because a dag > IS > > a DAG. > > > > What’s the problem with calling something EXACTLY what it is? So rarely > > does a technical team get it so right… this feels like a discussion with > > marketing people, wanting to obfuscate something completely reasonable, > for > > no functional value. > > > > How much energy can be spent making this scenario more common? “what’s > DAG > > vs Dag vs Oh you mean DaaG :-(… or whatever”. And why would one want to? > > > > Brian > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 11:45 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > > > > > -0.5 > > > > Even though the new UI prefers "Dag", I don't think that means "DAG" > > is > > > incorrect. > > > > > > I think we have a bunch of related things discussed here - I am not > > exactly > > > sure what the -0.5 in this context means Brent. Would it be possible to > > > clarify ? > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 6:01 PM Ambika Garg <ambikagarg1...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 would vote for > > > > Airflow's *D*ynamic *A*ction *G*raph (DAG) > > > > > > > > *Dynamic*: Reflects the capability of Airflow to handle workflows > that > > > > aren’t strictly acyclic, but can adapt to changes, iterations and > loops > > > > within broader context of workflow. > > > > > > > > *Action*: Emphasizes that airflow is fundamentally about > orchestrating > > > > actions or tasks. Whether its data processing, model training or any > > > other > > > > form of computation. It also conveys operational aspect of what > Airflow > > > > does. > > > > > > > > *Graph*: Maintains the core concept that workflows in Airflow are > > > > visualized and managed as graphs. This term keeps the idea of > > > dependencies > > > > and relationships between tasks intact. > > > > > > > > Ambika. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 11:46 AM Brent Bovenzi > > > <br...@astronomer.io.invalid > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > -0.5 > > > > > > > > > > Even though the new UI prefers "Dag", I don't think that means > "DAG" > > is > > > > > incorrect. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 11:36 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I love "Dynamic Airflow Graph" +10 to that Constance. > > > > > > > > > > > > And yes. I fully agree with your "somewhat" acyclic statement. I > > saw > > > > > people > > > > > > mentioning "event-driven" workflows to better describe the AI/ML, > > but > > > > > that > > > > > > for me is a synonym of "completely unmanageable workflows" > (similar > > > to > > > > > > micro-services) - what I was alluding to was exactly this - > > something > > > > > like > > > > > > curren DAG with parts of it being potentially cyclic - so we are > > > > > completely > > > > > > aligned here :). And that's what make it "not DAG - in > mathematical > > > > > sense" > > > > > > - even more reason to depart from it, > > > > > > > > > > > > J. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 5:23 PM Constance Martineau > > > > > > <consta...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I appreciate the discussion about how we position the concept > of > > a > > > > DAG > > > > > in > > > > > > > Airflow. While I agree with updating documentation to > > de-emphasize > > > > the > > > > > > > strict mathematical definition, I do not think we should change > > the > > > > > > public > > > > > > > interface to use "dag" instead of "DAG" everywhere. It adds > > > > > > > unnecessary churn and breaks consistency across the ecosystem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the broader discussion on whether DAGs in Airflow > > should > > > > > remain > > > > > > > acyclic: I acknowledge that some workflows, particularly in ML > > and > > > > AI, > > > > > > > require cyclical behaviour (example: iterative refinement > until a > > > > > > condition > > > > > > > is met). However, I think it's important to recognize that even > > in > > > > > those > > > > > > > cases, the workflow itself still has an overall start and end. > > It's > > > > not > > > > > > an > > > > > > > unbounded loop but rather a controlled execution process that > > > happens > > > > > to > > > > > > > have cycles *within* it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That being said, I do see value in reinterpreting "DAG" to > better > > > > align > > > > > > > with how Airflow is actually used, and love shifting away from > > > > > "Directed > > > > > > > Acyclic Graph" in favour of something more intuitive. However > > "Data > > > > > > Airflow > > > > > > > Graph" makes it sound like we're defining Airflow itself rather > > > than > > > > > > > describing the structure of workflows within it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we want a new meaning for DAG that resonates with our base > > while > > > > > > keeping > > > > > > > Airflow's identity clear, I am proposing three alternatives: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. *Dynamic Airflow Graph*: Ties directly to Airflow while > > > > > emphasizing > > > > > > > flexibility > > > > > > > 2. *Distributed Automation Graph*: Highlights execution > across > > > > > systems > > > > > > > and automations without tying it strictly to data > > > > > > > 3. *Directed Activity Graph*: Retains the useful meaning of > > > > > "Directed" > > > > > > > while shifting away from strict acyclic constraints. (My > > > personal > > > > > > > favourite) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think any shift in terminology should be driven by what best > > > > > > communicates > > > > > > > Airflow's role workflow automation, rather than just distancing > > > > > ourselves > > > > > > > from the mathematical definition. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Curious to hear more thoughts! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 10:40 AM Jarek Potiuk < > ja...@potiuk.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for the few typos ... My slight dyslexia did not help > and > > > > > > > autocorrect > > > > > > > > did not help either this time : dept -> debt, routed -> > rooted > > > and > > > > a > > > > > > few > > > > > > > > other small typos :) . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 4:28 PM Jarek Potiuk < > ja...@potiuk.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>
