Thanks for engaging.
I don't think I need to go to a lazy consensus vote so I won't unless
someone thinks necessary.
The PR is now ready for review if anyone is interested:
https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/39336
It was made more tricky by the fact that "backfill" is literally a second
o: dev@airflow.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] simplifying try_number handling
+1
Pumped to remove confusion around tries
On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 5:01 AM Wei Lee wrote:
> Thanks, Daniel! +1 for this one. This was confusing when I worked on the
> starting from triggerer stuff.
>
+1
Pumped to remove confusion around tries
On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 5:01 AM Wei Lee wrote:
> Thanks, Daniel! +1 for this one. This was confusing when I worked on the
> starting from triggerer stuff.
>
> Best,
> Wei
>
>
> > On May 3, 2024, at 11:59 AM, Amogh Desai
> wrote:
> >
> > Looks good to
Thanks, Daniel! +1 for this one. This was confusing when I worked on the
starting from triggerer stuff.
Best,
Wei
> On May 3, 2024, at 11:59 AM, Amogh Desai wrote:
>
> Looks good to me.
>
> Personally I never ran into any issues with this so far but I agree with
> the issues it solves.
>
Looks good to me.
Personally I never ran into any issues with this so far but I agree with
the issues it solves.
Thanks & Regards,
Amogh Desai
On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 2:50 AM Vincent Beck wrote:
> I am all +1 on this one. This thing gave me headaches when working on
> AIP-44 and I could not
I am all +1 on this one. This thing gave me headaches when working on AIP-44
and I could not understand the difference between the private "_try_number" and
the public "try_number". Thanks for simplifying it!
This is obviously assuming it does not break anything I am not aware of :)
On
TLDR
* changing handling of try_number in
https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/39336
* no more private attr
* no more getter that changes value based on state of task
* no more decrementing
* try number now only handled by scheduler
* hope that sounds good to all of you
For more detail read
