Yeah. It more about the communication. "-1" is - literally - by definition "negative" when you start your message with "I am strongly -1 on that". There is no further explanation given that changes that perception.
On Thu, May 1, 2025 at 11:32 AM Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> wrote: > "-1" was backed with rationale discussion and no one has said it was a bad > idea but you have said it is "negative". > > On Thu, 1 May 2025 at 14:59, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > > > That said, I want to push back on the framing of some feedback as > > “negative.” I really appreciate the folks who raised concerns, those > > perspectives are vital to making the project stronger and more inclusive. > > > > I think what I wanted to say is that I think we should all exercise > > empathy. It's super easy to say "-1" but it's harder to say "It's a good > > idea but ..". Psychological effect of the "-1" is that it "cuts the > wings" > > of the person who has some idea and wants to follow it through. The > > psychological effect of "cool idea, but" is that it - more often than > not - > > make the person more energised and inspired to look for a better > solution. > > > > And yes I know different people have different communication style, and > > there are cultural differences and all that. But I would personally love > to > > see more "yes, but" than "no". > > > > That's all I want to say.. > > > > J/ > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 1, 2025 at 11:23 AM Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Thanks for the energy and initiative here. > > > > > > That said, I want to push back on the framing of some feedback as > > > “negative.” I really appreciate the folks who raised concerns, those > > > perspectives are vital to making the project stronger and more > inclusive. > > > > > > Let’s make sure we continue to welcome both enthusiasm and critique. As > > > the ASF > > > Code of Conduct <https://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct> > > > reminds us, thoughtful disagreement and diverse viewpoints are not only > > > expected but encouraged. Referring to concerns as “negative”, even > > > unintentionally, can discourage people from speaking up, which we want > to > > > avoid. > > > > > > We all want what’s best for Airflow, and part of that is making sure > > > everyone feels safe to contribute, especially when something doesn’t > feel > > > right. > > > > > > >Rather than focusing on the negative side, try to figure out a way to > > make > > > it work :) > > > > > > Back to the proposal from Jens and you - Yes that (a comment allowing > to > > > still merge/auto-merge the PR) alleviates my concern. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Kaxil > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 1 May 2025 at 12:54, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I really like Jens's line of thought. Rather than focusing on the > > > negative > > > > side, try to figure out a way to make it work :). That's very > > inspiring. > > > > > > > > I think the original slack proposal of Jens was rather brittle, but > it > > > made > > > > me think that we can actually implement what we need rather quickly. > > > > > > > > Following the `Dependabot` style @rebase - we could implement - very > > > easily > > > > - there are ready actions for that and other projects like apache > beam > > > are > > > > using similar workflows - the comment workflow, where maintainer who > > > wants > > > > to merge (or auto-merge) such "failing" PR would just comment it > > > > appropriately. > > > > > > > > What we really want is to make the "finalize" check succeed, so if > the > > PR > > > > misses the "Finalize" step, a committer would just have to comment it > > > with > > > > "@bypass-finalize` or `@finalize` or similar. And what it would do, > it > > > > would use Github API to make the "Finalize" check succeed. There is > an > > > API > > > > for that. > > > > > > > > That has a few nice properties: > > > > > > > > * it uses the same GitHub UI we use, no need to have an "escape > hatch" > > > and > > > > separate remote > > > > * it follows the pattern we already agreed to some time ago and > > generally > > > > follow -> we are supposed (as maintainers) to explain when we are > > merging > > > > such failing PR to show that this is a deliberate action - I usually > > for > > > > example always add "fixed already in main" or "Fixed already by #..." > > > > comment - you really need a comment in this case explaining that it > was > > > not > > > > accidental "merge". > > > > * so if we have such workflow, it would "force" maintainer to make a > > > > deliberate decision "yes I want to merge it despite failing" and > make a > > > > comment in the PR > > > > * it would only set the "finalize" check to succeed, so still you > would > > > not > > > > be able to merge it without having an approval - this would only > bypass > > > the > > > > "finalize" check > > > > > > > > WDYT? Would that address all concerns with auto-merge ? Does it make > > > sense > > > > and is it "easy enough" to follow? Or are there any other concerns? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 10:36 PM Pavankumar Gopidesu < > > > > gopidesupa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I am also in line with Jens. The auto-merge feature works well in > > > keeping > > > > > the CI pipeline green before merging. > > > > > However, there are situations where we need to merge changes > quickly. > > > > > Instead of using an > > > > > escape route (which I’m not a fan of, as it carries risks if > > something > > > > goes > > > > > wrong—even though we can revert, it’s still a concern), > > > > > we could explore ways to dynamically bypass certain checks when > > > necessary > > > > > or maybe some help from INFRA? > > > > > > > > > > Pavan > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 9:22 PM Jens Scheffler > > > > <j_scheff...@gmx.de.invalid > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > As there was a call for more opinions. Here I am :-D > > > > > > > > > > > > I understand both positions. As I like AutoMerge very much I am > not > > > > > > giving up :-D I'd like to keep it. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think there is still an option in between. Maybe need to draft > a > > > bit > > > > > > of thoughts but I think we could build something still around the > > > > > > limitations allowing automation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Added a minor thought to the slack chat. But if community rules > > > propose > > > > > > to push to devchennel let me know. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jens > > > > > > > > > > > > On 30.04.25 11:04, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > > > > > > > Yeah, And I would encourage everyone to try it and provide > > feedback > > > > > while > > > > > > > it is enabled. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So far we identified a few things (and fix them) that made it > > > > > borderline > > > > > > > unusable (bug in workflow for UI-only changes, GitHub starting > to > > > > > 429-us > > > > > > > with too many requests, and the mysterious "hanging" of the > > latest > > > > > > > botocore/celery (?) "special tests" -> all that is already > > > addressed > > > > in > > > > > > > main, and those issues should not happen (hopefully), so I'd > say > > we > > > > can > > > > > > now > > > > > > > "truly" see how it might work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And one comment from my side - indeed, I find it nice actually, > > but > > > > > it's > > > > > > > definitely not a "deal breaker"- so if others find it too > > > > disruptive, I > > > > > > am > > > > > > > definitely not going to die on this hill, I just thought it > does > > > > > improve > > > > > > > the workflow in the way that it allows for mostly "fire and > > forget" > > > > > when > > > > > > > you approve the workflow, one thing that it definitely improves > > is > > > > that > > > > > > you > > > > > > > do not have to remember about coming back to merge a request > when > > > CI > > > > > > > succeeds. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > J. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 10:58 AM Kaxil Naik < > kaxiln...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Forgot to note an additional point in Summary: If we find > > anything > > > > > > blocking > > > > > > >> us in that period, we will merge > > > > > > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/50009 to disable > > > auto-merge. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 14:26, Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> Jarek & I discussed it on Slack in #internal-airflow-ci-cd. > > > Summary > > > > > > >> below: > > > > > > >>> I have a PR to disable it: > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/50009. > > > > > > >>> However, given that many countries will be on holiday on May > 1 > > > due > > > > to > > > > > > >>> Labour Day, and some teething issues were fixed yesterday, we > > > will > > > > > let > > > > > > it > > > > > > >>> run for a few more days so other committers and contributors > > can > > > > get > > > > > a > > > > > > >>> chance to try it out and share their experience after the > > > > > > >> experiment/trial > > > > > > >>> is concluded. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 13:59, Kaxil Naik < > kaxiln...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> 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, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
