Would it be possible to include AIRFLOW-1587? Running dags from the UI is currently broken on the 1.9.0 branch due to this issue.
https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/pull/2590 Thanks, Ryan On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Driesprong, Fokko <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi All, > > I would like to include AIRFLOW-1611 in the 1.9.0 release: > https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/pull/2631 > > Currently importing a custom logging configuration is not work (as far as I > know). Any feedback on the PR would also be appreciated. > > Cheers, Fokko > > > 2017-09-25 23:27 GMT+02:00 Chris Riccomini <[email protected]>: > > > 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 > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
