Done! On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 5:11 AM, Michael Crawford < [email protected]> wrote:
> Can you slide the aws and emr connection type fix in? > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-1636 < > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-1636> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/pull/2626 < > https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/pull/2626> > > It keeps the connection type from getting blanked out on edit for these > types. > > Thanks, > Mike > > > > > On Sep 21, 2017, at 1:27 PM, Chris Riccomini <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > 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]. > invalid > >> 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 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >
