No opposition. Lazy Consensus agreed. I release providers accordingly.
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 10:31 PM Daniel Standish
wrote:
>
> I think it makes sense and I'm a +1.
>
> For the convenience of other readers I'll paste your rationale here:
>
>> The rationale i have - that from the point of view
I think it makes sense and I'm a +1.
For the convenience of other readers I'll paste your rationale here:
The rationale i have - that from the point of view of provider, it's just a
> dependency change (which we generally consided non-breaking) and it does
> not break people's workflows in
I hope to have the RC release for the November wave of providers
todays (pending https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/27613 approval)
and unless someone has a problem with treating the min-version bump
approach as problematic, I would proceed assuming tha the lazy
consensus passed.
On Fri, Nov
Hey everyone,
Following the explanation in
https://lists.apache.org/thread/xpngxsdxmk1vw2wk34py8sdsqfmjdw9g I would
like to call for a lazy consensus on the change proposed in the PR
https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/27613 for the November wave of
providers.
When we bumped "min airflow
