Deprecate first to discover the possible footprint of any public API. With
the deprecation, bump the minor version. Add documentation about the
deprecation and appropriate deprecation code and warnings, with a notice
for the EOL date or an EOL sem ver.
— Darren
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 1:32 AM
+1
This turned out to be a sticking point while considering AIP-28 (replaced
by AIP-40)
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 8:44 AM Xiaodong Deng wrote:
> Just read through the AIP. It reads nice & solid
>
> +1 binding.
>
>
> XD
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 2:16 AM Tomasz Urbaszek
> wrote:
>
>> +1
+1
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 3:23 PM Kaxil Naik wrote:
> +1
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 10:14 PM Deng Xiaodong wrote:
>
>> Yep, it clarifies. I find it important because people may have different
>> interpretations on "*support*" and may lead to confusion later. But this
>> supplementary statement
+1
What about AIPs - will they migrate also?
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 8:01 AM Maxime Beauchemin <
maximebeauche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 binding
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020, 7:45 AM Jarek Potiuk
> wrote:
>
> > +1 binding.
> >
> > Re: contention: I think we can split reviewers by components. I
be added to CONTRIBUTING.md.
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 10:18 PM Darren Weber >
> wrote:
>
> > Via the GSOC thread, I found
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/First+time+contributor%27s+workshop
> > - agree wi
> J.
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 5:25 PM Darren Weber
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the ping on https://github.com/dask/dask/issues/5803
> >
> > I'm curious about how dask async features might be low-hanging fruit for
> > Airflow scaling
> > - https://
y list compared to things like autoscaling, DAG
> >>> serialization,
> >>> > etc.
> >>> >
> >>> > via Newton Mail [
> >>> >
> >>>
> https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=dx=10.0.32=10.14.6=email_footer_2
> >&g
+1 for keeping it and fixing tests
PS, I also noticed the skipped tests while looking at an option to use the
async client feature; if/when I get time to get back on that and figure out
how the test setup needs to work, I might also discover how to enable tests
for the non-async executor. No
Not sure whether to add to this email thread or the google-doc (not sure if
that google-doc is just a meeting-notes or if it should evolve into a spec
:grin:).
Maybe a stupid suggestion, but here it is anyway:
XCom - communication between elements of a DAG
XState - key/value store available for
Judicious use of:
# pylint: disable=do-not-use-asserts
^^ helps with interim use of pytest `assert`
On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 10:39 AM Kamil Breguła
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> As I mentioned earlier, I would prefer to maintain one convention for the
> project. The migration of the unittest assertions
The link to
https://docs.pytest.org/en/latest/example/markers.html#custom-marker-and-command-line-option-to-control-test-runs
helps
to clarify some of the customization required to add CLI options that
select test sets based on markers. +1 for a common default with *no
marker*. (It's hard to
60s : 0.0%, time together: 0.0m
>
>
> Total time of the example build: 28m. I am not sure when a test is "slow".
> Moreover, I think there could be
> a difference in times between local environment (where developer will
> decide to use such marker) and
> the CI envir
Consider all the options for filtering tests:
- http://doc.pytest.org/en/latest/example/markers.html
The `pytest -k` filters are very useful. Provide guidelines on how to name
things so that `pytest -k` can be used to filter categories of tests. Use
markers for tests that might be the
Hi,
I'm writing to request permission to create a new AIP at
-
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Airflow+Improvements+Proposals?show-miniview
My Wiki-ID is `dazza`.
Thanks,
Darren
14 matches
Mail list logo
