That is probably the most nerdy thing I have ever heard ;-). 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 7 jun. 2016, at 21:15, Maxime Beauchemin <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> 
> I have little visibility on the requirements of the community around making
> Airflow timezone aware as I have an internal UTC clock in my brain. For the
> record some of the engineers here answer in UTC when casually asking "what
> time is it?" ):
> 
> I'd be interested in reading a proposal / impact analysis on the subject
> though.
> 
> Max
> 
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 5:26 AM, Eric Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> Where is the flaw in this thinking?
>> 
>> So if airflow consistently uses naive datetime objects, won't they all end
>> up using the same timezone and thus be equally right in the same kind of
>> wrong way? I would only anticipate a problem when there is a mismatch when
>> comparing a naive datetime object with a timezone aware datetime object.
>> But that doesn't seem to be the case here.
>> 
>> I'm not trying to ignore the wisdom offered from others about embracing UTC
>> everywhere especially given the pains daylight saving time. It's just that
>> this requirement can be a bit of an imposition for some of us who are
>> trying to embrace airflow in an environment where its not UTC everywhere.
>> So my line of questioning is aimed at trying to suss out just what breaks
>> when you use another timezone.
>> 
>> -Eric
>> 
>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:10 PM, George Leslie-Waksman <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> There are three common ways of handling timezones: 1) use timezone aware
>>> datetime objects, 2) use timezone naive datetime objects and make sure
>> any
>>> system running your software has its clock set toUTC, or 3) be very, very
>>> sad because have potentially inconsistent times in your logs, scheduling,
>>> etc.
>>> 
>>> Airflow uses timezone naive datetime objects everywhere so you're stuck
>>> with option 2 or option 3.
>>> 
>>> Historically, handling timezones has been a pain so most people try to go
>>> with option 2. I would argue that it's gotten easy enough in Python that
>> it
>>> would be worth moving airflow to timezone aware datetime objects and
>> making
>>> everything a little bit easier/safer from a DevOps perspective.
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 2:50 PM Lance Norskog <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Any larger use of log management will end up with servers in two
>>> different
>>>> time zones. The ops team will inevitably set all machines to run with
>>> time
>>>> zone UTC. After that, all of the logs will be in UTC.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Edwards, Jesse <[email protected]
>>> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> While I can't speak to Airflow's exact requirement.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> For me the really clear reason is:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1. All other timezones are based off UTC +/- some amount. Thus
>>>> calculating
>>>>> the time in any given timezone is trivial.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2. UTC does not have daylight savings! It really sucks and throws
>>> systems
>>>>> out of whack when they think there are two 2AM hours on Time change
>> =).
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Jesse
>>>>> 
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: Eric Johnson <[email protected]>
>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 9:28:54 AM
>>>>> To: [email protected]
>>>>> Subject: UTC everywhere requirement
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi -
>>>>> 
>>>>> I see that at the moment Airflow wants everything to be in UTC.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Can those who understand this requirement speak a bit about where in
>>> the
>>>>> code this dependency exists? I took a cursory glance through the code
>>> in
>>>> a
>>>>> brief attempt to understand the scope of this issue and it wasn't
>>>>> immediately obvious where this was even assumed. I don't doubt it.
>> Just
>>>>> didn't spot it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I can certainly understand the need for all of airflow to run in the
>>> same
>>>>> time zone. But I find it odd that it really needs everything to be
>> UTC
>>>> and
>>>>> only UTC.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Eric
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Lance Norskog
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> Redwood City, CA
>> 

Reply via email to