+1 on the features. No opinion on naming On Mon, 5 Oct 2026 at 18:08, Zach Gottesman via dev <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding). Coincidentally I was just discussing the need for > something similar to this in a meeting earlier today. Would love to see it > as part of the Airflow public interface. > > On Mon, Oct 5, 2026 at 9:36 AM Jens Scheffler via dev < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On 05.10.26 11:45, Shahar Epstein wrote: > > > +1 (binding), thanks for leading this effort! > > > > > > > > > Shahar > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2026, 11:00 Blain David <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > >> Hi everyone, > > >> > > >> I would like to restart the vote on AIP-104, now titled Iterable Tasks > > >> (IT) and Task Spreading (TS): > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/spaces/AIRFLOW/pages/421954527/AIP-104+Iterable+Tasks+IT+and+Task+Spreading+TS > > >> > > >> The previous vote, under the name "Task Iteration and Dynamic Task > > >> Batching", ran during the summer and did not get much engagement: > > >> > > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/x5bd26zfqkkhp7sx7nb0crjlsctf2z5j > > >> > > >> The AIP has changed since then, so please vote on the current page > > rather > > >> than on what you may remember: > > >> > > >> - Renamed "Task Iteration (TI)" to "Iterable Tasks (IT)", as TI is > > already > > >> widely used for Task Instance (as remarked by Daniel). > > >> - Renamed "Dynamic Task Batching (DTB)" to "Task Spreading (TS)". The > > >> primitive is now .spread(across=N) instead of .batch(size=N), as > "size" > > >> read like a chunk length while it is the number of Task Instances. > Items > > >> are distributed round robin over those N Task Instances. The new name > > was > > >> discussed and voted on in separate threads (linked below). > > >> - Iterable Tasks now checkpoint progress per item through AIP-103 Task > > >> State. On a retry, or after a worker crash, items that already > finished > > are > > >> not run again; only the items that failed or were in flight are. > > >> - The page now documents task_concurrency, the setting that controls > how > > >> many items run at once inside one Task Instance. > > >> - The page now lists the current limits: deferrable operators, > > >> reschedule-mode sensors and TriggerDagRunOperator are not supported > > inside > > >> .iterate() yet (deferrable support is planned in a separate PR); > > >> execution_timeout applies per item only to async operators; > > >> multiple_outputs is ignored; and pools count the Task Instance rather > > than > > >> its items. > > >> > > >> The previous discussion threads can be found here: > > >> > > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/ztnfsqolow4v1zsv4pkpnxc1fk0hbf2p > > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/tr3x4sx55k0fk2coq28xs2648m1p65cc > > >> > > >> The naming of the spread primitive: > > >> > > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/6qlbvvnt76514rstzk447pvs4784wcj2 > > >> (discussion) > > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/rrc9bmhh5dcpyj4rcpjr2lj1q8vjdoxp > (vote) > > >> > > >> Thank you again to everyone who reviewed the AIP and took part in the > > >> discussions. A special thank you to Kaxil for the many detailed > reviews, > > >> and to TP, Jens, Jarek and Ash for their comments. Thanks as well to > > >> Daniel, Jedidiah and Amogh for their more recent reviews on the AIP > > page, > > >> and to everyone who voted on the naming of the spread primitive. > > >> > > >> The vote will remain open for 5 days and will close on Wednesday, 7 > > >> October 2026, at 00:00 GMT. > > >> > > >> Everyone is encouraged to vote, although only votes from PMC members > and > > >> committers are considered binding. > > >> > > >> Please vote accordingly: > > >> > > >> [ ] +1 Approve > > >> [ ] +0 no opinion > > >> [ ] -1 disapprove with the reason > > >> > > >> Please consider this my +1 (binding). > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> David > > >> > > >> General (Internal Property) > > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > >
