Absolutely. Just cherry-picked. I've been looking forward to these fixes! On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Alex Guziel <[email protected] > wrote:
> Can we get this in? > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-1519 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-1621 > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/commit/ > b6d2e0a46978e93e16576604624f57d1388814f2 > https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/commit/ > 656d045e90bf67ca484a3778b2a07a419bfb324a > > It speeds up loading times a lot, so it's a good thing to have in 1.9. > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Chris Riccomini <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Sounds good. I'll plan on stable+beta next week, then. Initial warning > > stands, that I will start locking down what can get into 1.9.0 at that > > point. > > > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Bolke de Bruin <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > No vote indeed, just to gather feedback on a particular fixed point in > > > time. It also gives a bit more trust to a tarball than to a git pull. > > > > > > Bolke > > > > > > > On 20 Sep 2017, at 20:09, Chris Riccomini <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I can do a beta. Is the process significantly different? IIRC, it's > > > > basically the same, just no vote, right? > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Bolke de Bruin <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Are you sure you want to go ahead and do RCs right away? Isn’t a > beta > > a > > > >> bit smarter? > > > >> > > > >> - Bolke > > > >> > > > >>> On 20 Sep 2017, at 19:41, Chris Riccomini <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Hey all, > > > >>> > > > >>> I want to send out a warning that I'm planning to cut the stable > > branch > > > >>> next week, and begin the RC1 release vote. Once the stable branch > is > > > >> cut, I > > > >>> will be locking down what commits get cherry picked into the > branch, > > > and > > > >>> will only be doing PRs that are required to get the release out. > > > >>> > > > >>> Cheers, > > > >>> Chris > > > >>> > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Chris Riccomini < > > > [email protected] > > > >>> > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> Hey all, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> An update on the 1.9.0 release. Here are the outstanding PRs that > > are > > > >>>> slated to be included into 1.9.0: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> ISSUE ID |STATUS |DESCRIPTION > > > >>>> AIRFLOW-1617 |Open |XSS Vulnerability in Variable endpoint > > > >>>> AIRFLOW-1611 |Open |Customize logging in Airflow > > > >>>> AIRFLOW-1605 |Reopened |Fix log source of local loggers > > > >>>> AIRFLOW-1604 |Open |Rename the logger to log > > > >>>> AIRFLOW-1525 |Open |Fix minor LICENSE & NOTICE issue > > > >>>> AIRFLOW-1499 |In Progres|Eliminate duplicate and unneeded code > > > >>>> AIRFLOW-1198 |Open |HDFSOperator to operate HDFS > > > >>>> AIRFLOW-1055 |Open |airflow/jobs.py:create_dag_run() > exception > > > for > > > >>>> @on > > > >>>> AIRFLOW-1019 |Open |active_dagruns shouldn't include paused > > DAGs > > > >>>> AIRFLOW-1018 |Open |Scheduler DAG processes can not log to > > stdout > > > >>>> AIRFLOW-1015 |Open |TreeView displayed over task instances > > > >>>> AIRFLOW-1013 |Open |airflow/jobs.py:manage_slas() exception > for > > > >>>> @once > > > >>>> AIRFLOW-976 |Open |Mark success running task causes it to > fail > > > >>>> AIRFLOW-914 |Open |Refactor BackfillJobTest.test_backfill_ > > > >> examples > > > >>>> to > > > >>>> AIRFLOW-913 |Open |Refactor tests.CoreTest.test_scheduler_ > job > > > to > > > >>>> real > > > >>>> AIRFLOW-912 |Open |Refactor tests and build matrix > > > >>>> AIRFLOW-888 |Open |Operators should not push XComs by > default > > > >>>> AIRFLOW-828 |Open |Add maximum size for XComs > > > >>>> AIRFLOW-825 |Open |Add Dataflow semantics > > > >>>> AIRFLOW-788 |Open |Context unexpectedly added to hive conf > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I will be locking down what can get cherry-picked into the 1.9.0 > > > branch > > > >>>> shortly, so if you have something you want in, please set the fix > > > >> version > > > >>>> to 1.9.0. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> We (at WePay) have deployed 1.9.0 into our dev cluster, and it has > > > been > > > >>>> running smoothly for several days. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> ** I could really use help verifying stability. If you run > Airflow, > > > it's > > > >>>> in your best interest to deploy the 1.9.0 test branch somewhere, > and > > > >> verify > > > >>>> it's working for your workload. ** > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Cheers, > > > >>>> Chris > > > >>>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
