I dont think this makes sense and I dont that think anyone had a real issue 
with this. Execution date has been clearly documented  and is part of the core 
principles of airflow. Renaming will create more confusion.  

Please note that I do think that as an anonymous user you cannot speak for any 
"new airflow user". That is a contradiction to me. 


Sent from my iPhone

> On 26 Sep 2018, at 07:59, airflowuser <airflowu...@protonmail.com.INVALID> 
> wrote:
> One of the most annoying, hard to understand and against all common sense is 
> the execution_date behavior. I assume that any new Airflow user has been 
> struggling with it.
> The amount of questions with answers referring to : 
> https://airflow.apache.org/scheduler.html?scheduling-triggers  is uncountable.
> Most people mistakenly think that execution_date is the datetime which the 
> DAG started to run.
> I suggest the following changes:
> 1. Renaming the execution_date to something else like: run_stamped   This 
> name won't cause people to get confused.
> 2. Adding a new variable which indicated the actual datetime when the DAG run 
> was generated. call it execution_start_date. People seem to want the 
> information when the DAG actually started to be executed/run.
> This is only naming changes. No need to actual change the behavior - This 
> will only make things simpler as when user encounter  run_stamped  he won't 
> be confused by the name like execution_date

Reply via email to