github-actions[bot] closed pull request #35972: Move fs scheme definition from
Python to YAML
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/35972
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the
github-actions[bot] commented on PR #35972:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/35972#issuecomment-2126310202
This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not
had recent activity. It will be closed in 5 days if no further activity occurs.
Thank you for
potiuk commented on PR #35972:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/35972#issuecomment-1958101758
Are you planning to continue that one @uranusjr / @bolkedebruin ?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and
github-actions[bot] commented on PR #35972:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/35972#issuecomment-1951496973
This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not
had recent activity. It will be closed in 5 days if no further activity occurs.
Thank you for
potiuk commented on PR #35972:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/35972#issuecomment-180384
> Throwing the cat among the pigeons, if we are to have this compatibility
layer indefinitely should we then maybe just stick with the initial
implementation?
I personally am in
bolkedebruin commented on PR #35972:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/35972#issuecomment-1877123012
Throwing the cat among the pigeons, if we are to have this compatibility
layer indefinitely should we then maybe just stick with the initial
implementation?
--
This is an
potiuk commented on PR #35972:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/35972#issuecomment-1869511325
> We _did_ mark AFS as experimental right? So, in theory we could be a bit
more daring in not doing backwards compatibility?
Well. Not if we are targetting our own, released
bolkedebruin commented on PR #35972:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/35972#issuecomment-1868579179
We *did* mark AFS as experimental right? So, in theory we could be a bit
more daring in not doing backwards compatibility?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git
potiuk commented on PR #35972:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/35972#issuecomment-1868025646
Yeah. yanking is a bit extreme measure, I agree.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above
eladkal commented on PR #35972:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/35972#issuecomment-1867919916
> and yank 2.8.0.
I dont think it's right to yank 2.8.0 over this.
I am OK to habdle it as bug fix but this means 2.8.1 should be created this
week to reduce the effect on
potiuk commented on PR #35972:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/35972#issuecomment-1866191267
Just one watchout - It's a bit of tough decision though - we rarely (I can't
even remember it) yank airflow version and we need to have good reason for it.
I personally don't have
bolkedebruin commented on PR #35972:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/35972#issuecomment-1866184318
Mmm yes. This feels a bit like XML config to me (so the pattern I mean, the
separation of what the code can do and how it is figured out what it can and
you need to look at
potiuk commented on PR #35972:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/35972#issuecomment-1862420043
BTW. We are not blocked "really" from changing provider.yaml. simply we have
to expose both interfaces.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the
potiuk commented on PR #35972:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/35972#issuecomment-1862415519
Maybe @uranusjr - raise this point at the devlist as usual?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
potiuk commented on PR #35972:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/35972#issuecomment-1862410111
Ah, i see now. Yes you are right. The fact that we released Airflow 2.8.0
without support for this schema means that providers will have to expose both
interface. Unitl they have
potiuk commented on PR #35972:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/35972#issuecomment-1862395049
And just add a bit - it would be quite surprising to see somethig "blocking"
provider.yaml changes - we've been adding similar features to `provider.yaml`
in pretty much every single
potiuk commented on PR #35972:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/35972#issuecomment-1862387487
> Since 2.8.0 does not contain logic to handle the new format, a provider
cannot change its `provider.yml` until it drops support to the version.
Well. Provider.yaml and
uranusjr commented on PR #35972:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/35972#issuecomment-1862316392
Since 2.8.0 does not contain logic to handle the new format, a provider
cannot change its `provider.yml` until it drops support to the version.
--
This is an automated message from
potiuk commented on PR #35972:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/35972#issuecomment-1862280931
What do you mean by blocked ?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the
uranusjr commented on PR #35972:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/35972#issuecomment-1862131263
Since 2.8.0 is released, all provider.yml updates are now blocked until the
affected providers require 2.8+. This is suboptimal.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git
potiuk commented on code in PR #35972:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/35972#discussion_r1430520039
##
generated/provider_dependencies.json:
##
@@ -418,7 +418,7 @@
"asgiref>=3.5.2",
"gcloud-aio-auth>=4.0.0,<5.0.0",
"gcloud-aio-bigquery>=6.1.2",
potiuk commented on code in PR #35972:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/35972#discussion_r1430422710
##
generated/provider_dependencies.json:
##
@@ -418,7 +418,7 @@
"asgiref>=3.5.2",
"gcloud-aio-auth>=4.0.0,<5.0.0",
"gcloud-aio-bigquery>=6.1.2",
potiuk commented on code in PR #35972:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/35972#discussion_r1430422710
##
generated/provider_dependencies.json:
##
@@ -418,7 +418,7 @@
"asgiref>=3.5.2",
"gcloud-aio-auth>=4.0.0,<5.0.0",
"gcloud-aio-bigquery>=6.1.2",
uranusjr commented on code in PR #35972:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/35972#discussion_r1429520070
##
generated/provider_dependencies.json:
##
@@ -418,7 +418,7 @@
"asgiref>=3.5.2",
"gcloud-aio-auth>=4.0.0,<5.0.0",
potiuk commented on PR #35972:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/35972#issuecomment-1859326601
The test needs to be fixed
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific
uranusjr commented on PR #35972:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/35972#issuecomment-1853502182
Compatibility added to load the old format, with a test.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
potiuk commented on PR #35972:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/35972#issuecomment-1835759611
> It’s totally pratical for the plugin manager to just support the old
format since it is very trivial, even indefinitely, as long as we don’t put it
in the schema. Since we have not
uranusjr commented on PR #35972:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/35972#issuecomment-1835414335
It’s totally pratical for the plugin manager to just support the old format
since it is very trivial, even indefinitely, as long as we don’t put it in the
schema. Since we have not
potiuk commented on PR #35972:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/35972#issuecomment-1834528330
Maybe a new item "fsspec" as a key instead of "filesystems"?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use
bolkedebruin commented on PR #35972:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/35972#issuecomment-1833667682
LGTM, but will require a release of the providers cc @eladkal, preferably
before 2.8 I think? And this should then also be in 2.8 in order not to provide
backwards compatibility?
30 matches
Mail list logo
