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 > > > > > > > > > >
