I marked them as blocker. Still would like to understand how important this is, though. The API is experimental, so I could see an argument for them not being blocker provided the vulnerability is limited to experimental areas.
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > I think we need to add > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-1764 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-1765 > > to that list as critical security fixes. I'll tackled 1765 tomorrow (UK > time) if no one gets round to it before then. > > -ash > > > On 30 Oct 2017, at 17:58, Chris Riccomini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hey all, > > > > Current blockers for 1.9.0: > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-1711 > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-1018 > > > > Cheers, > > Chris > > > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Chris Riccomini <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > >> Hey all, > >> > >> Talked with @Bolke on Gitter. Here are the currently blocking issues for > >> 1.9.0: > >> > >> AIRFLOW-1744 |Bug ||Blocker ||Open |task.retries can > >> be False > >> AIRFLOW-1731 |Bug ||Blocker ||Open |Import custom > >> config on PYTHONPATH > >> AIRFLOW-1641 |Bug ||Blocker ||In Progress|Task gets stuck > >> in queued state > >> > >> PRs are out for them. After these three are merged, I'm planning to cut > an > >> RC. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Chris > >> > >> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Bolke de Bruin <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>> 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/eb2f589099b > >>> 87743482c2eb16261b49e284dcd96/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:ryan.buckley@bluecore. > com > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >
