Old habits but I am fine with DAG and DAGs :) On Fri, 17 Oct 2025 at 07:18, Amogh Desai <[email protected]> wrote:
> Not to explode this thread further, but "Dag" seems to be a good middle > ground to me for the reasons mentioned above by Constance and AI. > > And, "DAG" is the worst of all for me to use in day to day speech. > > Thanks & Regards, > Amogh Desai > > > On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 12:14 AM Daniel Standish via dev < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > It's not an easy call. But I think my take is that Dag would make sense > if > > we rename the DAG object to Dag. But if we do not then it does not seem > > right to style it as Dag. > > > > If we want to rename the actual object from DAG to Dag, then sure. > > > > If we stay as DAG, I just like being able to write dag midsentence > because > > that is how we do it normally when writing about dags. And DAGs looks > > really awkward. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 3:12 AM Amogh Desai <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Thanks for sending this notice, Constance. > > > > > > The older thread just blew up with too many opinions and calling > > > a formal vote is the way to go. > > > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > > Amogh Desai > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 1:08 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Very nice summary ! Thanks Constance :) > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 9:27 PM Constance Martineau via dev < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Reviving this discussion after the canceled vote: > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/q7zdogwb76jko3vwz7tlsnl2cn3h3vg9 > > > > > > > > > > As mentioned earlier, I plan to *formally call a vote on Monday* to > > > > > finalize how we refer to Airflow workflows in writing (docs, > > tutorials, > > > > and > > > > > blog posts). > > > > > > > > > > This will *not* affect code (DAG and dag remain as-is in APIs and > > > > > decorators). The goal is to set a clear convention for prose so > > > > > contributors and vendors can align their content accordingly > > > > > > > > > > Why this matters: We’ve had inconsistent terminology across docs > and > > > > > repeated PR debates over capitalization. Standardizing will make > our > > > > > writing clearer, strengthen the Airflow brand, and give external > > > > > stakeholders a single reference to follow. > > > > > > > > > > Options for standardization: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. DAG (all caps) > > > > > - Matches existing imports (from airflow.sdk import DAG) and > > the > > > > > broader ecosystem. > > > > > - Keeps a nod to the original meaning ("directed acyclic > > graph") > > > > > which still fits conceptually even if we later allow more > > > flexible > > > > > graph > > > > > types > > > > > - Counterpoint: Feels overly technical or academic for many > > > readers > > > > > 2. Dag (capitalized) > > > > > - Treats it as an Airflow-specific concept ("a Dag" = an > > Airflow > > > > > workflow) > > > > > - Reads more naturally in writing than all caps. > > > > > - Counterpoint: Neither a class name nor a standard word > form, > > so > > > > it > > > > > can feel inconsistent > > > > > 3. dag (lowercase) > > > > > - Reads like a common noun in Airflow vocabulary > > > > > - Matches Python identifiers (dag_id, dag.run_id) and blends > > > > cleanly > > > > > into text > > > > > - Counterpoint: Loses the visual link to the acronym and > class > > > name > > > > > > > > > > If anyone has other proposals, please add them here and I'll > include > > > them > > > > > when the vote opens Monday. Please see the collapsed section for > more > > > > > details and background. > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > Constance > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > Proposed framing for the vote: > > > > > > > > > > - Option A: Prefer dag in docs; use DAG only when referring to > the > > > > > class/import > > > > > - Option B: Prefer Dag in docs; use DAG only for the > class/import > > > > > - Option C: Keep DAG as the standard everywhere (status quo) > > > > > > > > > > Option with the most votes wins. You can vote between -1 to +1 for > > any > > > of > > > > > the three options, and everyone will be encouraged to vote. > > > > > > > > > > Summary of viewpoints so far (AI- generated): > > > > > > > > > > - "dag" — clean, user-friendly, Pythonic, avoids shouting the > > > acronym > > > > > - "DAG" — consistent with current APIs and historical context > > > > > - "Dag" — middle ground; distinguishes the concept from the > > acronym > > > > > while keeping it recognizable > > > > > > > > > > Links: > > > > > > > > > > - > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/lktrzqkzrpvc1cyctxz7zxfmc0fwtq2j > > > > > - > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/5fn1n188f99jspt627qhqsp2pznq545s > > > > > - > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/q7zdogwb76jko3vwz7tlsnl2cn3h3vg9 > > > > > > > > > > Constance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
