I upgraded our production environment today. Some observations 1. Database migration (add max tries) didn’t workout of the box correctly for Postgres. “max_tries = False” didn’t work and needed to be casted to an int. Not sure how this gets to be false. This is a block imho 2. SSHExecuteOperator not having backwards compatibility sucks. We needed to rework quite a lot of dags 3. We use LdAP for logins. We havent configured the ‘superuser’ ‘data_profiler’ groups and thus should have automatic superuser privileges. We don’t at the moment (eg. we cannot manage connections or see the admin screens).
After fixing #1, the rest seems quite normal. Happy with the new logging. Bolke > On 20 Oct 2017, at 12:16, Driesprong, Fokko <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Bolke, > > This one is a blocker: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-1731. > > This requirers that we are sure that the /plugin/ folder is on the path: > https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/blob/eb2f589099b87743482c2eb16261b49e284dcd96/airflow/plugins_manager.py > > And maybe add an additional test and updating the docs a bit. Hopefully > somewhere in the next few days, however I'm a bit busy with the Spark > Summit. > > Cheers, Fokko > > 2017-10-19 21:03 GMT+02:00 Bolke de Bruin <[email protected]>: > >> Im planning to upgrade our production to 1.9.0alphaX tomorrow. >> >> What are the issues that are open? >> >> Cheers >> Bolke >> >>> On 9 Oct 2017, at 20:24, Chris Riccomini <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> K, I will plan on cutting an alpha1 later this week. Something for you >> guys to play with. >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Bolke de Bruin <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> hi Chris, >>> >>> We are still running pre alpha. I am a bit preoccupied with preparing >> for a conference and the team is readying a release of one of our core >> products. So it will probably will be after this week when I get my hands >> dirty again. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Bolke >>> >>> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad >>> >>>> Op 4 okt. 2017 om 23:35 heeft Chris Riccomini <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> het volgende geschreven: >>>> >>>> Hey all, >>>> >>>> Checking in. Has anyone tested this in their environments? Stable >> releases >>>> depend on community involvement. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Chris >>>> >>>> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 10:30 PM, Chris Riccomini < >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I've added AIRFLOW-1635 to the v1-9-test branch. It's not in alpha0, >> but >>>>> will be included in alpha1. >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Feng Lu <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Chris, >>>>>> >>>>>> I know it's annoying to have last minute commit com in, but this is a >>>>>> highly desirable feature for folks using GCP operators, is it >> possible to >>>>>> include AIRFLOW-1635 >>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/commit/b3e985a3 < >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/commit/b3e985a3> >>>>>> 146272ecfd3ceaaa0d8567e4e9e117d4> >>>>>> in? >>>>>> More than happy to offer help if there's something I can do. >>>>>> Thanks a lot. >>>>>> >>>>>> Feng >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Chris Riccomini < >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hey all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have cut a 1.9.0alpha0 release of Airflow. You can download it >> here: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/airflow/1. >> 9.0alpha0/ <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/ >> airflow/1.9.0alpha0/> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The bin tarball can be installed with pip: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> pip install apache-airflow-1.9.0alpha0+incubating-bin.tar.gz >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The goal is to have the community install and run this to expose any >>>>>> bugs >>>>>>> before we move on to official release candidates. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here are the outstanding blocker bugs for 1.9.0: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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-976 |Bug |Mark success running task causes it to >> fail >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> Chris >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Chris Riccomini < >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Welp. Work got in the way, so I'll cut the beta on Monday. :) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Chris Riccomini < >>>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Marked it for 1.9.0. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Charlie Jones < >>>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[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 < >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-988> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Link to PR: >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/pull/2415 < >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/pull/2415> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>>>>>>> Charlie Jones >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> CHARLIE JONES >>>>>>>>>>>>> Data Engineer >>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> | M: >> 972.821.7631 <tel:972.821.7631> >>>>>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Programmatic Performance.* Localized.* >>>>>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1407 Texas Street | Suite 202 | Fort Worth, TX 76102 >>>>>>>>>>>>> 800.840.0768 <tel:800.840.0768> | www.simpli.fi < >> http://www.simpli.fi/> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Chris Riccomini < >>>>>>>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Merged. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Ryan Buckley < >>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[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 < >> 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 < >> 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] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Done! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 5:11 AM, Michael Crawford < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] <mailto: >> [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://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> < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invalid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can we get this in? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-1519 < >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-1519> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-1621 < >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-1621> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/commit/ < >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/commit/> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> b6d2e0a46978e93e16576604624f57d1388814f2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/commit/ < >> 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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >>
