> I think We are approaching it from the same point of view, just that we
have different conclusions.

I agree. I think that simply there is one special case that we should
"allow". Details below.

> For 4, I do not have strong opinions on either front, but defining what to
> do and what not should
> probably be that if that change makes it easy to backport something else,
> maybe have it?

Yep. That's **exactly** my proposal. I do not want to backport **all**
refactorings. That would be stupid. In my definition of 4. I want to
cherry-pick those pre-commit when it's small, and automated and when we can
easily anticipate it will make it quite likely someone (soon) will do
another cherry-pick that will be conflicting.

Yes. It's not "0/1" and quite a bit personal judgment, and yes it **might
not** result in conflict (so we might end up with YAGNI), but I think we
should define (and trust committers judgment) when they do it, because they
want to prevent "others" to have problems.

For example in case of https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/51992 -> the
only reason why I think it makes sense to cherry-pick it is because it is
in the area of task-sdk that has been recently bug-fixed quite a number of
times and there are open related issues to this area that make it (IMHO)
quite likely to result in conflict. I think there are other areas like that
(UI for example) where we clearly cherry-pick a number of changes, because
there are some pretty active "bug-fixing" in this area as 3.0 had still a
number of low priority but either known or anticipated bugs that are likely
to be fixed in 3.0.3, 3.0.4

So just to clarify - I do not want to cherry-pick "all" refactoring, but
leave to the judgment of the commiter merging the request (and author) to
decide to cherry-pick such change anticipating it will make life easier for
others.

J




On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 2:57 PM Amogh Desai <amoghdesai....@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Agree with point 1 - 3 definitely.
>
> For 4, I do not have strong opinions on either front, but defining what to
> do and what not should
> probably be that if that change makes it easy to backport something else,
> maybe have it?
>
> For ex:
> *PR 1 changes file1.py and file2.py*
> *PR 2 changes some lines in file2.py*
>
> *We backport PR 1 as it's a bug fix and do not for PR 2 as its some
> refactoring.*
>
> *Now while trying to backport PR 3 (bugfix), it conflicts and needs PR 2 to
> be picked*
> *to land PR 3.*
>
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Amogh Desai
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 5:02 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I think We are approaching it from the same point of view, just that we
> > have different conclusions.
> >
> > Points 1-3 I agree with.
> >
> > We do already have this written up
> >
> https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/130e9600443e06c08acc1b28c69a62c858d6e6a2/dev/README_RELEASE_AIRFLOW.md?plain=1#L116-L129
> >
> > On 4 I think of it in terms that “every change carries some risk” — in
> the
> > linked example of 51992 the risk is almost zero, but generally: 3.0.x are
> > meant to be bug fix releases on top of 3.0.0, and if it’s not fixing a
> bug
> > we don’t back port it. The one exception I have to this is if the change
> is
> > needed to make it easy to backport a change that is a bug without
> conflicts.
> >
> >
> > I think our default approach has to be we don’t back port a change unless
> > it is fixing a bug, otherwise the risk of “oh I’ll just fix this” ends up
> > introducing more bugs than we fix. Stability of a Minor release series is
> > my primary desire, and not changing things more than we have to is the
> best
> > way I know of doing that.
> >
> > Things are slightly different now that we have automated cherry-picks but
> > I still don’t think it is worth porting refactoring automatically. It’s
> > extra change and risk for almost zero benefit to users is my view.
> >
> > -ash
> >
> > > On 23 Jun 2025, at 11:43, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > BTW. I'd be happy to capture result of this discussion if we can get
> to a
> > > consensus or vote eventually in the "cherry-picking" guidelines.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 12:42 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I wanted to start a discussion on "things that we cherry-pick" (to
> vX_Z
> > >> branch).
> > >>
> > >> I think there are different opinions on what kind of changes should be
> > >> cherry-picked and it might be a good idea to agree on a common
> approach.
> > >>
> > >> I think (following the comment of Ash here)
> > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/51992#issuecomment-2995632849
> > that
> > >> we can use a very simplistic and (I'd say) dogmatic approach "only
> > >> cherry-pick bug fixes. Full stop". But I believe (and past experience
> > from
> > >> a lot of cherry-picking that I've been doing - multiple times helping
> to
> > >> bring past branches to be green and spending countless hours on it,
> > that it
> > >> should be a bit more nuanced.
> > >>
> > >> I would love to see what others think, but from my experience those
> are
> > >> the things that we **should** cherry-pick:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 1) bug-fixes (of course)
> > >> 2) doc changes (when they are improvements or filling gaps)
> > >> 3) dev tool changes (every time we did not, it resulted in hours of my
> > >> time when things were breaking and I tried to reconcile it)
> > >> 4) results of automated refactorings that have very low risks (in the
> > >> areas that are likely to have cherry-picks)
> > >>
> > >> t) - is non-controversial I think
> > >>
> > >> 2) - is also relatively non-controversial and very low risk and gives
> > our
> > >> users a chance to get better docs earlier (even today for example I
> > cherry
> > >> picked this one: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/52068 -
> because
> > >> one of my friends who tries to learn Airflow 3 pinged me that
> > >> "ConfiuguringRuff" link that we have in 3.0.2 leads to 404 NOT found
> > >>
> > >> 3) - it had always bitten us if we stopped cherry-picking dev tool
> > >> changes. The thing is that external dependencies change all the time
> > and we
> > >> are continuously catching up with those, also we improve, speed up and
> > >> simplify the tooling - and often things that worked when branch was
> cut,
> > >> does not work today - countless, countless hours lost in one or two
> > >> branches when we stopped doing it - I think even once or twice I had
> to
> > >> just copy over most (but not all) the code from main to the branch and
> > >> commit one single "catch-up dev tooling with main" big change
> > >>
> > >> 4) Is likely most controversial - example here:
> > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/51992/ - those are the kind of
> > >> (really small) changes that are done in "active" area (i.e. area that
> > had
> > >> and will have a lot of cherry-picks anyway, but they are done with
> > >> automated refactoring - like renaming variables and such. This
> > introduces
> > >> clarity and readability, so this is good we are doing them. But if we
> do
> > >> not cherry-pick them and then we cherry-pick any change that touches
> the
> > >> same code, this lead to a conflict. Conflicts are frustrating,
> > especially
> > >> those kinds - you never know what you should do - should you "merge"
> > this
> > >> naming change with your change? or should you leave the original
> > namiing,
> > >> or should you try to find the past commit that changed it and
> > cherry-pick
> > >> it as well? This paired with the fact that we are using cherry-picker
> > that
> > >> allows to cherry-pick stuff very quickly, automatically and painlessly
> > when
> > >> there are no conflicts, make me think that yes - we should cherry
> -pick
> > >> those changes proactively as a service to those contributors who will
> > >> follow up with their cherry-picking. It's just "good service" and
> > helping
> > >> others who will come after you.
> > >>
> > >> That's how my definition of "what we should cherry-pick" is...
> > >>
> > >> I wonder what others think about it ?
> > >>
> > >> J.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to