Works for me. Will try and cut a beta before end of week. Blockers for 1.9.0 are:
AIRFLOW-1611 |Bug |Customize logging in Airflow AIRFLOW-1525 |Improvement |Fix minor LICENSE & NOTICE issue AIRFLOW-1258 |Bug |TaskInstances within SubDagOperator are marked as AIRFLOW-976 |Bug |Mark success running task causes it to fail On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Bolke de Bruin <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Chris > > Can I suggest releasing a beta? The stable branch is only cut at RC time. > Betas allow us a broader exposure. It also gives us a point of reference. > > In addition the list below are mostly longer standing issues that are also > part of the 1.8.x branch. Maybe only consider 1611, 1525, 1258, and 976 as > blocker? > > Cheers > Bolke > > Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad > > > Op 28 sep. 2017 om 19:49 heeft Chris Riccomini <[email protected]> > het volgende geschreven: > > > > Hey all, > > > > I was planning to cut a 1.9.0 stable branch and 1.9.0 beta release, but > > seeing as there are several outstanding bugs, I'm going to delay. Here > are > > the bugs that I'm tracking: > > > > AIRFLOW-1611 |Bug |Customize logging in Airflow > > AIRFLOW-1525 |Improvement |Fix minor LICENSE & NOTICE issue > > AIRFLOW-1258 |Bug |TaskInstances within SubDagOperator are > marked as > > AIRFLOW-1055 |Bug |airflow/jobs.py:create_dag_run() exception > for > > @on > > AIRFLOW-1018 |Bug |Scheduler DAG processes can not log to stdout > > AIRFLOW-1013 |Bug |airflow/jobs.py:manage_slas() exception for > @once > > AIRFLOW-988 |Bug |SLA Miss Callbacks Are Repeated if Email is > Not > > be > > AIRFLOW-976 |Bug |Mark success running task causes it to fail > > > > These are the priority issues. Once they're merged, I'll cut the > > v1-9-stable and beta release. > > > > If you can help clean this up, that would be really appreciated. > > > > Cheers, > > Chris > > > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Chris Riccomini <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > >> Marked it for 1.9.0. > >> > >>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Charlie Jones <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Is there any chance we could include AIRFLOW-988 in 1.9.0? SLA > callbacks > >>> are not working correctly without emails... Its not a major bug, but it > >>> does cause us some annoyance in our current deployment. > >>> > >>> Link to Jira: > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-988 > >>> > >>> Link to PR: > >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/pull/2415 > >>> > >>> Thanks! > >>> Charlie Jones > >>> > >>> CHARLIE JONES > >>> Data Engineer > >>> [email protected] | M: 972.821.7631 > >>> __________________________________________________ > >>> > >>> > >>> Programmatic Performance.* Localized.* > >>> __________________________________________________ > >>> > >>> 1407 Texas Street | Suite 202 | Fort Worth, TX 76102 > >>> 800.840.0768 | www.simpli.fi > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Chris Riccomini < > [email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Merged. > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Ryan Buckley < > >>> [email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> 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_ru > >>> n() > >>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> >
