Re: Call with Nielsen team demoing their DAG debugging feature

Hi Jarek, I would also like to join as well, please. Thanks, Avi On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 3:32 PM Buğra Öztürk wrote: > Hello Jarek, > > Thanks for sharing! It sounds very interesting. I would like to join. Could > you please forward to me as well? > > Thanks! > > On Sat, 8 Jun 2024, 17:28 Jed

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New committer: Wei Lee

Yay! Congrats Wei! On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 11:36 AM Aritra Basu wrote: > Congrats wei! Great job! > > -- > Regards, > Aritra Basu > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2024, 4:17 PM wrote: > > > Congrats Wei! > > > > > On Apr 8, 2024, at 5:31 AM, Pankaj Singh > > wrote: > > > > > > Congrats Wei, very well

Re: [VOTE] AIP-62 Getting Lineage from Hook Instrumentation

+1 (non-binding) Regards, Avi > On Apr 4, 2024, at 10:23, Pankaj Koti > wrote: > > +1 binding. Sounds exciting. > > Sorry I missed the discussion earlier. I have some questions but those are > implementation related > and I think the PRs will help me understand those :) > > > Best regards,

Re: [VOTE] New Airflow Community Provider: Teradata

+1 non binding > On 17-Jan-2024, at 03:01, Aritra Basu wrote: > > +1 non binding > > -- > Regards, > Aritra Basu > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2024, 5:35 AM Wei Lee wrote: > >> +1 non binding >> >> Best, >> Wei >> >>> On Jan 17, 2024, at 2:54 AM, Josh Fell >> wrote: >>> >>> +1 (binding) >>> >>>

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on September 08, 2023

+1 (non-binding) Tested the OpenLineage providers. Looks good to me. On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 6:55 PM Vincent Beck wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > I tested successfully the Amazon provider package by running some testing > DAGs and it looks good. > > On 2023/09/08 15:55:38 Elad Kalif wrote: > >

Re: [VOTE] April 2023 PR of the Month

+1 for #30375 is must to have. Thanks, Abhishek Bhakat Airflow Engineer On 26-Apr-2023 at 01:31:22, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > Indeed. Extremely tough choice this time, but I'd go for 30175 for me -> > Kafka provider has been long in the making and Dylan had done a lot of > effort to

Re: [DISCUSSION] Assessing what is a breaking change for Airflow (SemVer context)

Hi, I Beg to differ with Alexander and agree with Jarek. There are multiple ways to deploy Airflow. Mostly commonly used is docker images, in that case using one image for all components is standard practice. If using native pip installations, airflow components are launched by a single pip

Re: [Discussion] Airflow Newsletter name and branding

Hi All, I would like to suggest “Atmosphere”. This came to my mind when I think about Airflow in Clouds. Even different layers of Atmosphere have cool names. Maybe it’s a lame suggestion. Thanks, Abhishek On 15-Nov-2022 at 12:30:00 AM, John Thomas wrote: > Hi All, > > I'm looking to add a bit

Re: [DISCUSS] "Use existing venv" support for PythonVirtualenvOperator as counterpart to AIP-46

Would like to vote for ExternalPythonOperator. Cause usually Virtualenv have symbolic links for python binaries untill used —copies to make it fully portable. Additionally there is option to use differently compiled python altogether (For example pypy or jython

Re: [VOTE] AIP-44 - Airflow Internal API

+1 (non-binding) for gRPC only. On 11-Aug-2022 at 8:42:52 AM, Ash Berlin-Taylor wrote: > +1 (binding) now with that change. Thank you very much. > > I'm also okay with us to proceed with only gRPC for now -- with this > architectural change it's much easier to replace it in future if we >

Re: [DISCUSS] "Magic Loop" as fist class citizen in Airflow ?

Can vote for making it as an optional approach for fine-tuning (only for advance users). On 12-Jul-2022 at 7:44:35 AM, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > Not interesting :) ? > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 10:41 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote: > > > Hello everyone, > > > We have just published a blog on our medium - >

Re: Please vote on the PR of the Month for this month's Airflow Newsletter!

I also vote in favor of #24249 On 28-Jun-2022 at 7:28:55 PM, Phani Kumar wrote: > I also vote for 24249 :) > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 7:23 PM Jarek Potiuk wrote: > >> Let the fight begin :) >> >> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 3:43 PM Brent Bovenzi >> wrote: >> > >> > I also vote for 24249 >> > >>

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.3.0 from 2.3.0rc2

ince this is no worse in 2.3.0rc2 than it was in >>>> 2.2.5 it shouldn't stop the release of 2.3.0. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Ash >>>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 29 2022 at 20:28:49 +0530, Abhishek Bhakat >>>> wrote

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.3.0 from 2.3.0rc2

e this isn't a regression in 2.3 I'd ask if you could remove your -1 > vote? > > On Fri, Apr 29 2022 at 20:13:31 +0530, Abhishek Bhakat > wrote: > > -1 (non-binding) > An issue with parsing dynamic tasks, causes the scheduler to crash. > https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.3.0 from 2.3.0rc2

-1 (non-binding) An issue with parsing dynamic tasks, causes the scheduler to crash. https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/23361 On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 7:58 PM Collin McNulty wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Made and ran several test DAGs using mapped tasks. > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 3:54 AM