Whoops yeah. >Yep. Because it did not have all conversations resolved. We also have "require resolved conversation" as one of the branch protection conditions. I resolved the conversation and it got merged automatically.
Let's adapt it when ready though, I don't see any urgency of getting enabling auto-merge or getting it contributed immediately to asf INFRA when it isn't critical. It is about priortization I'd say - if that is really bothering us - let's shape the feature rather > than outright reject it. On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 12:37, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 7:55 AM Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > To the point that the original PR is still not merged even after I had > > re-triggered the failed tests yesterday: > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49727 > > > > > Yep. Because it did not have all conversations resolved. We also have > "require resolved conversation" as one of the branch protection conditions. > I resolved the conversation and it got merged automatically. > > > > > > On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 11:20, Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > The gitbox escape hatch isn't it though -- if we are to allow that why > > not > > > just allow people to merge it directly from github that to go via an > > > "escape hatch". > > > > Generally speaking GitHub has this option. Currently "admins" have a > possibility of overriding branch protection (via UI). And it would be > possible - if INFRA will allow it - to possibly add an .asf.yaml feature to > also allow branch protection override for all committers or a subset of the > committers (PMC Members ? ). This is more of a limitation of the current > implementation of permissions than a missing feature. If we all feel that > the gitbox escape hatch is not enough, we can likely even contribute such a > feature to .asf.yaml - if INFRA will be ok with the option. It's very easy > to contribute to - INFRA made it possible, we have a new framework: > https://github.com/apache/infrastructure-asfyaml - we can even implement > "airflow-only" .asf.yaml feature, that will not be initially available to > other ASF projects and later we can promote it to be available to everyone. > > I'd say - if that is really bothering us - let's shape the feature rather > than outright reject it. > > > > > I am -1 on this auto-merge feature > > > > > > > Understood :). But let's give it a bit more time as well and maybe improve > it (see above) - unless we really feel we are blocked now - then it should > be as easy as merging an .asf.yaml change to disable it. > > > > > > > > On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 11:18, Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> That’s not a single person, it impacts the committers and the PR > author > > >> involved too. I don’t see how team productivity soars here. > > >> > > >> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 02:39, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > >> > > >>> But yes, I also miss the previous "merge because I think it's safe" > > >>> workflow. > > >>> > > >>> I badly miss it. Personally, It hurts my productivity. > > >>> > > >>> But I think the "require status check" to be green is great for "team > > >>> productivity". Usually when single person is impacted more than team > in > > >>> general, it's worse for the person impacted, but team productivity > > soars. > > >>> > > >>> J. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 11:03 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > Just to add comment: > > >>> > > > >>> > a) there was some instability of "celery/boto" hanging tests today > > >>> that is > > >>> > rather difficult to address - but we worked around it by just > > removing > > >>> > "special-tests" from pre-requisite of merging > > >>> > b) GitHub today (like literally today!) started to be picky on "too > > >>> many > > >>> > requests" - I addressed it today for both helm chart and our > release > > >>> tests > > >>> > (we are using bearer-token to authenticate and increase the limit - > > >>> and we > > >>> > added cache on downloading json schema that was downloaded > "per-test" > > >>> > c) in cases like the one mentioned above with intermittent > failures - > > >>> > simple "rerun failed jobs" (assuming it will succeed after rerun) - > > is > > >>> > essentially equivalent of "merge" (unless it fails again which for > me > > >>> is a > > >>> > signal of "DO NOT MERGE") > > >>> > d) we always have the "gitbox" escape hatch - that allows any > > >>> committer to > > >>> > push the fix directly, bypassing the limits: > > >>> > > > >>> > This is a simple thing for committers: > > >>> > > > >>> > git add remote gitbox > > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/airflow.git > > >>> > git fetch gitbox > > >>> > git commit --amend ("add #PR number") > > >>> > git push gitbox BRANCH_NAME:main (you need to provide your apache > id > > >>> and > > >>> > password) > > >>> > > > >>> > This is a nice escape hatch that we can use as "exceptional > > workflow" - > > >>> > and it works - I did it quite a few times over the last few days. > Not > > >>> UI > > >>> > controlled, but IMHO exceptional workflow should be - well - > > >>> exceptional. > > >>> > > > >>> > J. > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 8:52 PM Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > > >>> >> Similar experience as Elad, I am in favor of disabling it tbh. For > > >>> >> example, > > >>> >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49727 has a failing test > as > > >>> below > > >>> >> -- > > >>> >> which is not an issue, and test passes locally so I would want to > > >>> merge it > > >>> >> but I can't. > > >>> >> > > >>> >> FAILED > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> > > > helm-tests/tests/helm_tests/airflow_aux/test_basic_helm_chart.py::TestBaseChartTest::test_priority_classes > > >>> >> - requests.exceptions.HTTPError: 429 Client Error: Too Many > Requests > > >>> for > > >>> >> url: > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> > > > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/yannh/kubernetes-json-schema/master/v1.29.1-standalone-strict/priorityclass-scheduling-v1.json > > >>> >> > > >>> >> On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 at 18:29, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> > > wrote: > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 1:46 PM Elad Kalif <elad...@apache.org> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > Thanks for that Jarek! > > >>> >> > > I find the lack of ability to merge PRs fast very limiting but > > it > > >>> >> might > > >>> >> > be > > >>> >> > > just something to get used to. > > >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > Indeed. I also see it, but also I got a few manually pushed > "must > > >>> fix > > >>> >> > quickly" to gitbox, and actually I find it really nice - because > > it > > >>> is > > >>> >> > still possible, but it require some extra effort and deliberate > > "ok > > >>> that > > >>> >> > one really should be pushed to unblock everyone" - as long as we > > all > > >>> >> > (especially those people that are active in the > > >>> >> > #internal-airfow-ci-cd channel) know how to do it and can fix > > things > > >>> >> > quickly, this is actually a nice way to make it into > "exceptional" > > >>> >> workflow > > >>> >> > - which will push us more in making sure airflow main is really > > >>> "green" > > >>> >> - > > >>> >> > which ultimately is our goal to make it as green as possible all > > the > > >>> >> time. > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > What **might help with that** (and also keeping the "enable auto > > >>> merge" > > >>> >> > might motivate it more to) is to: > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > * speed up the builds - we MUST prioritise now ARC (K8S > > self-hosted > > >>> >> > runners) to make our builds simply faster - I started a > discussion > > >>> and a > > >>> >> > small group of people who can work together to complete it after > > >>> >> Hussein's > > >>> >> > POC) > > >>> >> > * speed up the image release - with ARM runners (which we might > be > > >>> able > > >>> >> to > > >>> >> > do independently as recently I think we have hypervisor-enabled > > ARM > > >>> >> images > > >>> >> > available as public runners as github made it generally > > available). > > >>> >> > * speed up the doc builds for airflow-site - we (mainly Pavan) > are > > >>> >> close to > > >>> >> > complete offloading of the historical release docs to S3 and I > > hope > > >>> it > > >>> >> will > > >>> >> > cut down a lot on doc publishing workflows. > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > J, > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > >>> > > > >>> > > >> > > >
