[GitHub] [airflow] maxnathaniel commented on pull request #28953: Updated Telegram Provider to ensure compatbility with >=20.0.0

2023-02-22 Thread via GitHub
maxnathaniel commented on PR #28953: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/28953#issuecomment-1441023946 @eladkal thanks for pushing the fix for the static checks issue. Been trying to troubleshoot the precommit cmd on both my local machine and on devpod for the past day. -- This

[GitHub] [airflow] maxnathaniel commented on pull request #28953: Updated Telegram Provider to ensure compatbility with >=20.0.0

2023-02-20 Thread via GitHub
maxnathaniel commented on PR #28953: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/28953#issuecomment-1436957932 @eladkal I have updated the CHANGELOG. Hope it makes sense and provides enough information about the changes -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To

[GitHub] [airflow] maxnathaniel commented on pull request #28953: Updated Telegram Provider to ensure compatbility with >=20.0.0

2023-02-20 Thread via GitHub
maxnathaniel commented on PR #28953: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/28953#issuecomment-1436858511 > @maxnathaniel are you OK with this? Sorry for my late reply. Yes, I will update the README and do a final check of the code. -- This is an automated message from the

[GitHub] [airflow] maxnathaniel commented on pull request #28953: Updated Telegram Provider to ensure compatbility with >=20.0.0

2023-01-19 Thread GitBox
maxnathaniel commented on PR #28953: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/28953#issuecomment-1398028299 @Taragolis Sorry have been busy past couple of days. Do you think I should go ahead to replace `python-telegram-bot` with

[GitHub] [airflow] maxnathaniel commented on pull request #28953: Updated Telegram Provider to ensure compatbility with >=20.0.0

2023-01-16 Thread GitBox
maxnathaniel commented on PR #28953: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/28953#issuecomment-1383676331 > (didn't review the PR just looking for clarification for release time) Is this PR backward compatible or should we consider this a breaking change? Yes it's backward