Wow what a discussion thread. Was reading it and...:
I am okay to clean up docs and agree to the others that we should NOT
change code interfaces.
For the marketing part I need to repeat: (Almost) Everybody touching
Airflow needs an explanaition what "DAG" means. Changing the acronym to
have another meaning for DAG still needs an explanaition. For me
reanming the meaning of the Acronym does not bring any benefit, also not
Marketing.
I have also seen multiple times challenges for teams in our area (even
outside ML) who wanted to iterate over results and we needed to
implement complexer multi-DAG structures to make this possible because
of DAG. If we would go in the direction as Jarek pitched (which might be
earliest 3.5 or 4.0) that a non-DAG workflow would be made possible (I'd
LOVE this!) then I would strongly opt for renaming it to "Workflow".
Because everybody understands (or thinks he understands) what it is and
DAG might be one implementation of this.
So my conclusion is I am not for changing the meaning of DAG.
On 18.02.25 19:54, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org
