Sounds reasonable to me. +1
We have been meaning to refactor the AWS operators anyway, we could take
advantage of this to reorganize the repo a little bit.
That makes me think that we have not yet decided of a flow to enable work
towards say 2.0 vs 1.8. We might want to start thinking about this.
> So I vote for this, but it will have to be done gently to avoid breaking the
> existing GCP ones.
Same.
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Jeremiah Lowin wrote:
> One reason I do like the idea is that especially in contrib, Operators are
> essentially self-documenting and the first clue is just
One reason I do like the idea is that especially in contrib, Operators are
essentially self-documenting and the first clue is just the file name
('my_gcp_operators.py'). Since we no longer greedily import anything, you
have to know exactly what file to import to get the functionality you want.
Grou
Talking about AWS, it would only make sense if other people would step up
to do it for AWS, and even Azure (or don't we have Azure operators?).
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 5:25 PM Chris Riccomini
wrote:
> What do others think? I know Sid is a big AWS user.
>
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Chris
Ya, if we go the deprecation route, and let them float around for a
release or two, I'm OK with that (or until we bump major to 2.0).
Other than that, it sounds like a good opportunity to clean things up.
:) I do notice a lot of AWS/GCP code (e.g. the S3 Redshift operator).
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 a
What do others think? I know Sid is a big AWS user.
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Chris Riccomini wrote:
> Ya, if we go the deprecation route, and let them float around for a
> release or two, I'm OK with that (or until we bump major to 2.0).
>
> Other than that, it sounds like a good opportun
Well, I wouldn't touch the on that exist (maybe we could mark them
deprecated, but that's all). But I would move (copy) them together and make
them consistent (example, let them all use the same default connection_id,
...). For a new user it's quite confusing I think due to different reasons
(style
Hmm. What advantages would this provide? I'm a little nervous about
breaking compatibility. We have a bunch of DAGs which import all kinds
of GCP hooks and operators. Wouldn't want those to move.
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 7:54 AM, Alex Van Boxel wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm starting to write some very
