I checked the API - +1. Thanks for writing this up! Thanks Nathan for mentioning the #63884 PR. It is nice addition (already merged), and I think that it will be really useful for users who got used to Airflow 2 retry mechanism. I think also that your PR and API-109 are complementary as one is focusing on the versioning behaviour for retrying task, the latter is focusing on versioning behaviour for new Dag Runs. ________________________________ From: Christos Bisias <[email protected]> Sent: 25 May 2026 09:46 To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] DAG Version Pinning for Deployment Gating (Building on AIP-63)
Hello, I'm a little late on the discussion but I just came across the AIP and I like this idea. I've actually been thinking of working on something similar, to allow people to handle a bad rollout by reverting to old code for that run without a full slow release pipeline. And this covers it. In my opinion, this seems more like a natural step towards what dag versioning is supposed to do, than a new feature. Thank you, Christos On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 8:15 AM Piyush Maheshwari < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi everyone, > I wanted to send a gentle nudge to review AIP-109: DAG Version Pinning ( > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-109+DAG+Version+Pinning > ). > If there are no major concerns, I would like to take this to a vote soon. > > Thanks, > Piyush > > On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 7:44 AM Piyush Maheshwari < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Thanks for the note, Sumit. Based on the feedback, I've drafted an AIP > > that is now up for review. > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-109+DAG+Version+Pinning > > > > Would like to get the community's feedback on the same. > > > > Nathan, I remember seeing your work (the issue and an older PR) while > > reviewing all ongoing work related to DAG versions. I agree with the PR's > > intent, although I haven't reviewed it yet. > > I understand your PR makes the version-pinned execution behavior of > reruns > > and backfills configurable. > > However, this discussion revolves around the behavior for new runs only. > > We need the capability to pin a DAG to a specific version for future runs > > instead. > > Hope that clarifies. > > > > Regards, > > Piyush > > > > On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 5:11 PM Nathan Hadfield < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> Hello, > >> > >> I saw AIP-109 that was created in relation to this discussion and > thought > >> I’d better mention this PR that I’ve been working on for a while and is > >> close to being approved. > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/63884 > >> > >> It is very much related to the motivations described and implements the > >> desire for control over the behaviour when clearing/backfilling runs. > >> > >> Happy to discuss best steps for this here or on the PR. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Nathan > >> > >> From: Przemysław Mirowski <[email protected]> > >> Date: Tuesday, 28 April 2026 at 21:54 > >> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] DAG Version Pinning for Deployment Gating > >> (Building on AIP-63) > >> > >> This Message Is From an External Sender > >> This message came from outside your organization. > >> > >> > >> > P.S. In my opinion, what can be done in/around git, should be done > >> there. Recreation of CI/CD in any form inside of Airflow itself is > >> something which should not be done. > >> > I'm glad we agree on this :) I suppose we just disagree on what is > >> possible outside of Airflow :p > >> > >> I think that we just disagree on what the issue is, not on what is > >> possible/should be outside of Airflow. > >> > >> > I think we are trying to duplicate what we already have in Git. > >> > >> Not really if we are only referring to version pinning. As far as I am > >> aware of how things are working, there is no possibility to determine > that > >> Dag after e.g. deployment on 1:00:00 PM will be exactly parsed and used > >> since 1:01:00 PM forward. Basically, what version pinning would provide > is > >> the full control of the time since the given version will be used > >> (currently we can only have more-or-less timing which in some cases, is > not > >> sufficient). The "quick revert" is the consequence of having above > >> possibility. > >> > >> Looking at the general concerns, with having that feature or not, users > >> can pretty easily test things on production, but it just requires more > time > >> between iterations without it. IMHO it will not change the need for > >> Airflow-related platform teams which makes sure, by standards/policies, > >> that things are properly tested before production deployment. I think > that > >> assumption that some users will misuse this feature is true (like with > most > >> of the features really), but on the other hand it would provide more > >> control for other users. The other solution possibly would be to make > Dag > >> Processor work more on "events" instead of "simple" parsing loop (I > recall > >> that there was some PR couple years ago with PoC of that, but I couldn't > >> quickly find it). > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> From: Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> > >> Sent: 28 April 2026 17:02 > >> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] DAG Version Pinning for Deployment Gating > >> (Building on AIP-63) > >> > >> Same concerns. I think we are trying to duplicate what we already have > in > >> Git—branches and reverts, for example—by moving what should be managed > as > >> part of the development process to Airflow UI. > >> > >> Almost everything you describe can be done with: > >> > >> * having a dev/staging system configured properly to use dev/staging > >> branches > >> * Having a process of managing development and a proper branching > strategy > >> * single git command (for example, `git revert XXXX` followed by push to > >> the right branch) > >> > >> J. > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 10:34 AM Pierre Jeambrun <[email protected] > > > >> wrote: > >> > >> > At first glance I tend to agree with Jens and Niko. > >> > > >> > I understand the request, but I agree that this resolves CI/CD and > >> testing > >> > issues that should probably be remain outside Airflow. > >> > > >> > On Mon, Apr 27, 2026 at 7:43 PM Oliveira, Niko <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Hey folks! > >> > > > >> > > > P.S. In my opinion, what can be done in/around git, should be done > >> > > there. Recreation of CI/CD in any form inside of Airflow itself is > >> > > something which should not be done. > >> > > > >> > > I'm glad we agree on this :) I suppose we just disagree on what is > >> > > possible outside of Airflow :p > >> > > > >> > > But at this point I will bow out of the conversation and let others > >> weigh > >> > > in. I'm not fully convinced any of these requested behaviours > require > >> > > changes to Airflow (I think that's just masking some dev ops work). > >> But > >> > > also I'm not completely opposed to the change either, I'm more on > the > >> > > fence, so if others love the feature by all means implement it! :) > >> > > > >> > > Cheers, > >> > > Niko > >> > > ________________________________ > >> > > From: Przemysław Mirowski <[email protected]> > >> > > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2026 3:06 PM > >> > > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > >> > > Subject: RE: [EXT] [DISCUSS] DAG Version Pinning for Deployment > Gating > >> > > (Building on AIP-63) > >> > > > >> > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do > >> not > >> > > click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender > and > >> > know > >> > > the content is safe. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > AVERTISSEMENT: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un expéditeur > >> externe. > >> > > Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si vous ne > >> > pouvez > >> > > pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes pas > certain > >> > que > >> > > le contenu ne présente aucun risque. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Hi, > >> > > > >> > > I think that CI/CD and version pining are a little two different > >> things > >> > > here. In a use cases with some critical systems involved, the > >> situation > >> > > when the Dag changes the version to the latest without possibility > to > >> > > determine when it will exactly happen (CI/CD will have some > >> more-or-less > >> > > time to deploy the change, the same goes for Dag Processor parsing > >> time) > >> > is > >> > > rather hard to do and in some systems it can make change deployment > >> > harder > >> > > and less safe. Of course, the ideal solution would be to have proper > >> > > non-prod environment, which is fully representative in comparison to > >> > > production (in some cases exposing non-prod to prod > data/traffic/etc. > >> is, > >> > > just, not an option - e.g. security), but it is not always possible > >> to do > >> > > due to various reasons like costs, licenses, space and/or vendors. > I'm > >> > > agreeing especially with point 5 of Piyush latest message. Having > >> above > >> > in > >> > > mind, I think that version pinning would be a nice addition to the > Dag > >> > > Versioning feature with an assumption that it is for critical > Airflow > >> > Dags > >> > > when full control of the Dags version change time is required (maybe > >> > there > >> > > is also another way to achieve that). > >> > > > >> > > P.S. In my opinion, what can be done in/around git, should be done > >> there. > >> > > Recreation of CI/CD in any form inside of Airflow itself is > something > >> > which > >> > > should not be done. > >> > > ________________________________ > >> > > From: Oliveira, Niko <[email protected]> > >> > > Sent: 23 April 2026 01:50 > >> > > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > >> > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] DAG Version Pinning for Deployment Gating > >> > (Building > >> > > on AIP-63) > >> > > > >> > > Hey Piyush, > >> > > > >> > > Thanks for your reply, I do love how clearly it is written and I see > >> > > exactly the problem you're trying to solve! > >> > > > >> > > I'm still just not convinced this needs to be done in Airflow, at > >> least > >> > > not with a first class feature. As interesting as I think your > >> > microservice > >> > > analogy is, Airflow is not a microservice component, it is a (very, > >> very) > >> > > fancy cron scheduler. And I'm not sure the complexity is worth the > use > >> > > case. Since any new code added to Airflow must be maintained by this > >> > > community and we must be cautious that any new pieces serves enough > >> use > >> > > cases/users to make it worth it. > >> > > To me this should either be managed outside of an individual Airflow > >> > > environment e.g. you have an entirely separate staging/gamma/dev > >> Airflow > >> > > environment, which is exposed to some level of production traffic > (to > >> > > borrow your microservice analogy) until it can graduate to the > >> production > >> > > environment. And if you really need on the fly toggling of a > version, > >> as > >> > > you say, Airflow does this quite responsively, if you deploy a new > >> > version > >> > > of your dags it will parse and start using that new version > >> immediately > >> > > (the problem you're trying to solve can be a benefit here). You can > >> even > >> > > have multiple versions of your dags deployed at once and use > >> > configuration > >> > > to control which dag directory Airflow reads from (or move/symlink > >> Dags > >> > in > >> > > and out of the Dags directory as needed from a known good or pinned > >> > > source). Or use variables or some other parameter store to control > >> other > >> > > pieces of runtime behaviour inside the Dags themselves. Between > CI/CD, > >> > dev > >> > > ops and making use of existing Airflow primitives I think you can > >> achieve > >> > > what you're looking for. > >> > > > >> > > But as always, this is open and community based software, so I'm > >> happy to > >> > > disagree and commit if the rest of the community thinks this is a > >> > valuable > >> > > feature :) > >> > > > >> > > Cheers, > >> > > Niko > >> > > ________________________________ > >> > > From: Piyush Maheshwari <[email protected]> > >> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 10:46 PM > >> > > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > >> > > Subject: RE: [EXT] [DISCUSS] DAG Version Pinning for Deployment > Gating > >> > > (Building on AIP-63) > >> > > > >> > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do > >> not > >> > > click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender > and > >> > know > >> > > the content is safe. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > AVERTISSEMENT: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un expéditeur > >> externe. > >> > > Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si vous ne > >> > pouvez > >> > > pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes pas > certain > >> > que > >> > > le contenu ne présente aucun risque. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Hi Ephraim, Jarek, Jens, and Niko, > >> > > > >> > > Thank you for the candid feedback. I want to clarify a few things, > as > >> I > >> > > completely agree with Jens and Niko that "testing in production" is > an > >> > > anti-pattern. That is absolutely not the intention here. > >> > > > >> > > 1. I view this as bringing standard microservice-like deployment > >> maturity > >> > > to DAGs. > >> > > Before service deployments in our org, code is tested locally, in a > >> dev > >> > > environment, and via strict unit/e2e integration tests before it > ever > >> > makes > >> > > it to main. But even after merging and passing those CI pipelines, > we > >> > still > >> > > use load tests, pre-prod soak times, shadow traffic, and gated > >> production > >> > > rollouts with automated rollback triggers. Having deployment gates > for > >> > the > >> > > production environment doesn't mean the pre-merge checks weren't > >> strict > >> > or > >> > > that the change wasn't tested beforehand -- it just allows us to > place > >> > > additional safety gates for the code to take effect, exactly like in > >> the > >> > > service world. > >> > > > >> > > 2. The core issue we are trying to solve is that Airflow currently > >> > > inseparably links Code Distribution (a file arriving on the > >> dag-processor > >> > > and being parsed) with Release Activation (the scheduler executing > >> that > >> > > code). > >> > > To extend the microservices analogy, I can think of the DAG > processor > >> > > parsing all files as "building the artifact(s)," while the scheduler > >> and > >> > > executor acting on the DAG versions created thereafter as > "deploying" > >> or > >> > > running the changed code. > >> > > We simply want to decouple the build from the deployment. This does > >> not > >> > > mean that the code arriving on the dag-processor will be tested for > >> the > >> > > first time straight in production. It should've already passed a set > >> of > >> > > checks in the CI pipeline. > >> > > > >> > > 3. It is also worth calling out that Airflow already supports this > >> > > decoupled behavior at the run level for task re-runs and > mid-execution > >> > DAG > >> > > version bumps (by pinning the version for the rest of the execution > or > >> > the > >> > > rerun). We are simply trying to expose this existing capability at > the > >> > DAG > >> > > level so users can govern which version new scheduled runs are > created > >> > > with. > >> > > > >> > > 4. I also agree that Airflow itself should not be aware of our CI/CD > >> > > pipeline, nor would it manage the deployment orchestration or > testing. > >> > > For our requirements, I just need Airflow to expose APIs to deploy > >> (pin) > >> > a > >> > > DAG version, and to remove the pin (to restore/enable the default > >> > > "auto-deploy latest" behavior). > >> > > Beyond that, we intend to use an external release orchestrator that > >> can > >> > > explicitly tell Airflow when a parsed version is actually allowed to > >> run. > >> > > Until that API call is made, the previously pinned version remains > >> > active. > >> > > This ensures we don't introduce assumptions or awareness of the > >> presence > >> > of > >> > > any external gating mechanisms to Airflow. > >> > > Also note that the intention is to keep the default auto-deploy > >> behavior > >> > > unless a user (or a system on their behalf) explicitly asks Airflow > to > >> > pin > >> > > a DAG to a specific version. > >> > > > >> > > 5. Most importantly, this feature provides an incident response > >> > "rollback" > >> > > behavior. If a bad DAG version slips through CI/CD into production, > >> > either > >> > > an on-call engineer or a rollback-trigger (airflow-external) can > >> > instantly > >> > > roll back to the previous pinned version via the API/UI to mitigate. > >> > > Without this, users have to revert the code in Git and wait for the > >> > entire > >> > > CI/CD pipeline and file-sync process to run, which is often too slow > >> > during > >> > > an outage. > >> > > > >> > > 6. Jarek - You are right, database schema changes can be discussed > >> later. > >> > > My intention was only to share a very brief summary of how I deemed > >> it to > >> > > be technically feasible for early feedback. I did briefly share the > >> > > high-level use cases ("Safe Deployment Gating" and "Instant > >> Rollbacks") > >> > in > >> > > the original mail, but I completely agree that aligning on the UX > >> first > >> > > would be a good next step. > >> > > > >> > > If there are no major remaining concerns after this response, I can > >> draft > >> > > and share an AIP to detail the UX, followed by a high-level > proposal, > >> > > caveats and next steps. > >> > > > >> > > Thanks for your time. > >> > > Regards, > >> > > Piyush > >> > > > >> > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 5:59 PM Oliveira, Niko <[email protected] > > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > I am with Jens on this one. I think we're complicating Airflow to > >> get > >> > > > around a bad practice. If stability of your Dags is critical and > >> they > >> > are > >> > > > highly versioned then I think as Jens suggested running them > >> through a > >> > > > pipeline that first deploys them to a dev or gamma environment > which > >> > > > verifies that quality of the Dags is what you expect. If something > >> > slips > >> > > > through, then it's just normal software practices of either > >> reverting > >> > and > >> > > > rolling back or rolling forward with a fix pushed through the > >> > pipeline. I > >> > > > don't think Airflow should be aware of that process or opinionated > >> > about > >> > > it. > >> > > > > >> > > > Cheers, > >> > > > Niko > >> > > > ------------------------------ > >> > > > *From:* Jens Scheffler <[email protected]> > >> > > > *Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2026 11:17 AM > >> > > > *To:* [email protected] <[email protected]> > >> > > > *Subject:* RE: [EXT] [DISCUSS] DAG Version Pinning for Deployment > >> > Gating > >> > > > (Building on AIP-63) > >> > > > > >> > > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. > Do > >> not > >> > > > click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender > >> and > >> > > know > >> > > > the content is safe. > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > AVERTISSEMENT: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un expéditeur > >> > externe. > >> > > > Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si vous > ne > >> > > pouvez > >> > > > pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes pas > >> certain > >> > > que > >> > > > le contenu ne présente aucun risque. > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Hi, > >> > > > > >> > > > I am still quite sceptical. Yes, if such pinning is made, then per > >> Dag > >> > a > >> > > > change need to be possible via UI and API. But I still see it as > >> > > > checken-and-egg - so you want to run a pinned version but then how > >> do > >> > > > you test the changes (w/o moving a version pin)? Then again some > >> test > >> > > > mode is needed or per run you need to make a "test run" with > another > >> > > > version. Smells a bit like mis-using a production system for > >> testing. > >> > > > > >> > > > On the other hand, yes if all Dags share the same Git repo then > >> merging > >> > > > a branch to some other will switch all Dags at the same time. > Still > >> you > >> > > > could utilize standard Git tools and cherry-pick individual > changes > >> and > >> > > > no force to always make a full rollout. At least 80% possible with > >> > > > standard CI/CD tools and Git. > >> > > > > >> > > > TLDR I see the danger that instead of a proper CI/CD and test > system > >> > > > such a feature might feel like you can easily test on a production > >> > > > system. Effectively it would be needed allowing to start a Dag > with > >> any > >> > > > version to also be able to jump back as a reversion. Even though, > >> yes, > >> > > > agree, all is technically possible. > >> > > > > >> > > > Jens > >> > > > > >> > > > On 20.04.26 16:40, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > >> > > > > +1 to what Ephraim wrote. I think that was a natural next step > we > >> > > > > discussed, but it needs significant refinement, starting with > the > >> > > actual > >> > > > > use cases it should serve and the UX for user interaction. I > think > >> > > > related > >> > > > > database changes are pretty secondary. Use cases cover runs, > >> re-runs, > >> > > > > backfills, CI testing, rollbacks, etc. Following the > >> "documentation > >> > > > first" > >> > > > > approach discussed in separate thread, describing the context > and > >> > > > intention > >> > > > > of what we want to achieve is much more important than DB schema > >> > > changes. > >> > > > > Once we know which use cases we want to serve, the DB schema > >> changes > >> > > and > >> > > > > other related items will emerge naturally. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 3:15 PM Ephraim Anierobi < > >> > > > [email protected]> > >> > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> Hi Piyush, thanks for starting this discussion. > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> I like the proposal. We can introduce an active execution > version > >> > for > >> > > > >> "versioned bundles" and make scheduler/API resolve through it. > >> The > >> > > hard > >> > > > >> part of this is making airflow able to distinguish the latest > >> parsed > >> > > > >> dagmodel's metadata from active scheduling metadata. I will > >> suggest > >> > > you > >> > > > >> draft this in a google docs and share for further discussions. > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> Regards > >> > > > >> - Ephraim > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 at 01:31, Piyush Maheshwari < > >> > > [email protected]> > >> > > > >> wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> Thanks for sharing your thoughts Jens. > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>>> be able to test it? … a Q&A/Testing environment to be able to > >> > > sign-off > >> > > > >>> changes. > >> > > > >>> Yes, we’ve have built an isolated airflow environment to run > >> > > regression > >> > > > >>> checks before promoting to production. > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> As you suggested, we’re already running both generic and > >> DAG-custom > >> > > > >> static > >> > > > >>> checks in a CI job as a required step to merge to the main > >> branch. > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>>> But then the "main" branch might be best suited if > >> > > > >>> implemented on the test system > >> > > > >>> In this case, problematic commits on “main” can choke other > >> > unrelated > >> > > > >>> changes. > >> > > > >>> So the other option would be to revert the problematic commits > >> and > >> > > > deploy > >> > > > >>> forward. > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> However, a key limitation with this approach that remains is > >> that a > >> > > > >> commit > >> > > > >>> affecting multiple DAGs goes live for either all DAGs or none. > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> Second important feature we get with this is instant DAG-level > >> > > rollback > >> > > > >>> without waiting for a revert commit to merge and be picked by > >> > > airflow. > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> I think DAG-level version pinning can also unlock a lot of > >> > > flexibility > >> > > > >> for > >> > > > >>> deployments including tiered rollouts, auto-rollback triggers, > >> > timed > >> > > > >>> deployment windows and so on. > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> Looking forward to hear your thoughts. > >> > > > >>> Regards, > >> > > > >>> Piyush > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> On Sun, 19 Apr 2026 at 3:12 PM, Jens Scheffler < > >> > [email protected]> > >> > > > >>> wrote: > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>>> Thanks Piyush for dropping the discussion! > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> I think in general QA processes are important and a valid use > >> > case. > >> > > So > >> > > > >> a > >> > > > >>>> kind of pinning Dag versions really is important. > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> Thinking about it, if you pin the version ... how would you > >> then > >> > be > >> > > > >> able > >> > > > >>>> to test it? I assume you would need (and should have or > invest > >> > > into) a > >> > > > >>>> Q&A/Testing environment to be able to sign-off changes. Both > in > >> > > > >>>> infrastructure but also for Dag changes. > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> If you are changing Dags first of all static checks on Dag > code > >> > are > >> > > > >> very > >> > > > >>>> much proposed as well as you can have tests implemented and > >> test > >> > > your > >> > > > >>>> Dags and logic. Similar like software a CI/CD system will be > a > >> > good > >> > > > >>>> setup. Alongside Dag changes also have logical changes that > >> mostly > >> > > can > >> > > > >>>> only be tested in a live system and not as static checks. > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> Have you considered using Git and a set of branches for > >> > implementing > >> > > > >>>> such staging? E.g. you have a git repo and you plan to make > >> > changes. > >> > > > >>>> Then you would open a PR for the change and merge it to the > >> "main" > >> > > > >>>> branch - and there in your CI/CD you can check all sorts of > >> static > >> > > > >>>> checks and tests. But then the "main" branch might be best > >> suited > >> > if > >> > > > >>>> implemented on the test system. Once you validate the changes > >> > > > >> end-to-end > >> > > > >>>> you could make another PR for example to a "prod" branch. And > >> if > >> > > your > >> > > > >>>> production system is only pulling Dags from the "prod" branch > >> then > >> > > you > >> > > > >>>> can have this merging strategy as a staging setup. > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> Would this resolve your PING problem? Or which other detail > in > >> the > >> > > use > >> > > > >>>> case would require a PIN on top of a staging strategy? > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> Jens > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> P.S.: Have enabled your confluence account after it was > >> created in > >> > > > >> order > >> > > > >>>> to write to Confluence, sorry, typical pitfall after account > >> > > creation > >> > > > >>>> permissions were not set. Now it should work. Let me know if > >> not. > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> On 19.04.26 01:40, Piyush Maheshwari wrote: > >> > > > >>>>> Hi everyone, > >> > > > >>>>> I'm a new contributor to Airflow. I'd like to propose a new > >> > feature > >> > > > >> for > >> > > > >>>> Airflow: DAG Version Pinning. > >> > > > >>>>> Building on the foundation introduced by AIP-63: DAG > >> Versioning ( > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-63*3A*DAG*Versioning__;JSsr!!Ci6f514n9QsL8ck!l3ZKTOw996h9qu4NR0VT4ouUryUdk_HmXUAVPbwCHwPwn0N2CCptVdx95-V0BoRFjws9huE_1Vy-THL8jw$ > >> > > > >>> ), > >> > > > >>>> this proposal aims to extend Airflow's capabilities to > support > >> > true > >> > > > >>>> continuous deployment (CD) gating and safer release cycles. > >> > > > >>>>> The Problem & Use Cases > >> > > > >>>>> Currently, the scheduler always creates DagRuns using the > >> latest > >> > > > >> parsed > >> > > > >>>> DagVersion. This means that the updated DAG code is deployed > >> > (takes > >> > > > >>> effect) > >> > > > >>>> right after the dag-processor processes it. While this is > great > >> > for > >> > > > >> rapid > >> > > > >>>> development, teams running business-critical pipelines often > >> need > >> > > > >>> stricter > >> > > > >>>> deployment mechanisms. Specifically: > >> > > > >>>>> * > >> > > > >>>>> Safe Deployment Gating: The ability to pin a DAG to its last > >> > known > >> > > > >>>> stable version while new code is parsed in the background. > This > >> > > allows > >> > > > >>> the > >> > > > >>>> new version to be held back until it passes automated > >> regression > >> > > tests > >> > > > >> or > >> > > > >>>> receives explicit manual approval. > >> > > > >>>>> * > >> > > > >>>>> Instant Rollbacks: If an issue is detected in a newly > promoted > >> > DAG > >> > > > >>>> version, users need the capability to instantly roll back to > a > >> > > > previous > >> > > > >>>> version via the UI/API, without having to revert the > underlying > >> > code > >> > > > >> and > >> > > > >>>> wait for the repository sync and DAG processing cycle. > >> > > > >>>>> High-Level Proposed Solution > >> > > > >>>>> Introduce an optional active_dag_version_id to the DagModel. > >> This > >> > > > >> field > >> > > > >>>> can be used to pin a DAG version for scheduling and > execution, > >> > while > >> > > > >> the > >> > > > >>>> dag-processor can continue to parse and register newer DAG > >> > versions. > >> > > > >>>>> * > >> > > > >>>>> When this pin is set, the scheduler and API will respect the > >> > pinned > >> > > > >>>> version for creating runs and executing tasks, separating the > >> > > parsing > >> > > > >> of > >> > > > >>>> new code from the execution of new code. > >> > > > >>>>> * > >> > > > >>>>> If the pin is NULL, the system defaults to the current > >> behavior > >> > > > >> (always > >> > > > >>>> executing the latest parsed version). This way, we can > maintain > >> > > > >> complete > >> > > > >>>> backwards compatibility. > >> > > > >>>>> I have put together some detailed notes covering the data > >> model > >> > > > >>> changes, > >> > > > >>>> database migrations, and edge cases with this approach. If > >> there > >> > is > >> > > > >>> general > >> > > > >>>> alignment that this fits the vision for Airflow, I would like > >> to > >> > > take > >> > > > >>> this > >> > > > >>>> proposal through the formal AIP review process. > >> > > > >>>>> But I would love to get the community's feedback on the > >> feature > >> > and > >> > > > >> the > >> > > > >>>> high-level approach. > >> > > > >>>>> I'll also need someone to grant me access to create content > on > >> > the > >> > > > >>>> Airflow Confluence wiki. > >> > > > >>>>> Thanks for your time! > >> > > > >>>>> Regards, > >> > > > >>>>> Piyush > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > > > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
