Re: [DISCUSS} Enabled experiment auto-merge feature

[Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>]

I really like Jens's line of thought. Rather than focusing on the negative
side, try to figure out a way to make it work :). That's very inspiring.

I think the original slack proposal of Jens was rather brittle, but it made
me think that we can actually implement what we need rather quickly.

Following the `Dependabot` style @rebase - we could implement - very easily
- there are ready actions for that and other projects like apache beam are
using similar workflows - the comment workflow, where maintainer who wants
to merge  (or auto-merge) such "failing" PR would just comment it
appropriately.

What we really want is to make the "finalize" check succeed, so if the PR
misses the "Finalize" step, a committer would just have to comment it with
"@bypass-finalize` or `@finalize` or similar. And what it would do, it
would use Github API to make the "Finalize" check succeed. There is an API
for that.

That has a few nice properties:

* it uses the same GitHub UI we use, no need to have an "escape hatch" and
separate remote
* it follows the pattern we already agreed to some time ago and generally
follow -> we are supposed (as maintainers) to explain when we are merging
such failing PR to show that this is a deliberate action - I usually for
example always add "fixed already in main" or "Fixed already by #..."
comment - you really need a comment in this case explaining that it was not
accidental "merge".
* so if we have such workflow, it would "force" maintainer to make a
deliberate decision "yes I want to merge it despite failing" and make a
comment in the PR
* it would only set the "finalize" check to succeed, so still you would not
be able to merge it without having an approval - this would only bypass the
"finalize" check

WDYT? Would that address all concerns with auto-merge ? Does it make sense
and is it "easy enough" to follow? Or are there any other concerns?




On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 10:36 PM Pavankumar Gopidesu <
gopidesupavan@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am also in line with Jens. The auto-merge feature works well in keeping
> the CI pipeline green before merging.
> However, there are situations where we need to merge changes quickly.
> Instead of using an
> escape route (which I’m not a fan of, as it carries risks if something goes
> wrong—even though we can revert, it’s still a concern),
> we could explore ways to dynamically bypass certain checks when necessary
> or maybe some help from INFRA?
>
> Pavan
>
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 9:22 PM Jens Scheffler <j_scheffler@gmx.de.invalid
> >
> wrote:
>
> > As there was a call for more opinions. Here I am :-D
> >
> > I understand both positions. As I like AutoMerge very much I am not
> > giving up :-D I'd like to keep it.
> >
> > I think there is still an option in between. Maybe need to draft a bit
> > of thoughts but I think we could build something still around the
> > limitations allowing automation.
> >
> > Added a minor thought to the slack chat. But if community rules propose
> > to push to devchennel let me know.
> >
> > Jens
> >
> > On 30.04.25 11:04, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> > > Yeah, And I would encourage everyone to try it and provide feedback
> while
> > > it is enabled.
> > >
> > > So far we identified a few things (and fix them) that made it
> borderline
> > > unusable (bug in workflow for UI-only changes, GitHub starting to
> 429-us
> > > with too many requests, and the mysterious "hanging" of the latest
> > > botocore/celery (?) "special tests" -> all that is already addressed in
> > > main, and those issues should not happen (hopefully), so I'd say we can
> > now
> > > "truly" see how it might work.
> > >
> > > And one comment from my side - indeed, I find it nice actually, but
> it's
> > > definitely not a "deal breaker"- so if others find it too disruptive, I
> > am
> > > definitely not going to die on this hill, I just thought it does
> improve
> > > the workflow in the way that it allows for mostly "fire and forget"
> when
> > > you approve the workflow, one thing that it definitely improves is that
> > you
> > > do not have to remember about coming back to merge a request when CI
> > > succeeds.
> > >
> > > J.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 10:58 AM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Forgot to note an additional point in Summary: If we find anything
> > blocking
> > >> us in that period, we will merge
> > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/50009 to disable auto-merge.
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 14:26, Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Jarek & I discussed it on Slack in #internal-airflow-ci-cd. Summary
> > >> below:
> > >>> I have a PR to disable it:
> > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/50009.
> > >>> However, given that many countries will be on holiday on May 1 due to
> > >>> Labour Day, and some teething issues were fixed yesterday, we will
> let
> > it
> > >>> run for a few more days so other committers and contributors can get
> a
> > >>> chance to try it out and share their experience after the
> > >> experiment/trial
> > >>> is concluded.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 13:59, Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Whoops yeah.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Yep. Because it did not have all conversations resolved. We also
> have
> > >>>> "require resolved conversation" as one of the branch protection
> > >>>> conditions.
> > >>>> I resolved the conversation and it got merged automatically.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Let's adapt it when ready though, I don't see any urgency of getting
> > >>>> enabling auto-merge or getting it contributed immediately to asf
> INFRA
> > >> when
> > >>>> it isn't critical. It is about priortization
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'd say - if that is really bothering us - let's shape the feature
> > >> rather
> > >>>>> than outright reject it.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 12:37, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>
> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 7:55 AM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>>>> To the point that the original PR is still not merged even after I
> > >> had
> > >>>>>> re-triggered the failed tests yesterday:
> > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49727
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> Yep. Because it did not have all conversations resolved. We also
> have
> > >>>>> "require resolved conversation" as one of the branch protection
> > >>>>> conditions.
> > >>>>> I resolved the conversation and it got merged automatically.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 11:20, Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> The gitbox escape hatch isn't it though -- if we are to allow
> that
> > >>>>> why
> > >>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>> just allow people to merge it directly from github that to go via
> > >> an
> > >>>>>>> "escape hatch".
> > >>>>> Generally speaking GitHub has this option. Currently "admins" have
> a
> > >>>>> possibility of overriding branch protection (via UI). And it would
> be
> > >>>>> possible - if INFRA will allow it - to possibly add an .asf.yaml
> > >> feature
> > >>>>> to
> > >>>>> also allow branch protection override for all committers or a
> subset
> > of
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>> committers (PMC Members ? ). This is more of a limitation of the
> > >> current
> > >>>>> implementation of permissions than a missing feature. If we all
> feel
> > >> that
> > >>>>> the gitbox escape hatch is not enough, we can likely even
> contribute
> > >>>>> such a
> > >>>>> feature to .asf.yaml - if INFRA will be ok with the option. It's
> very
> > >>>>> easy
> > >>>>> to contribute to - INFRA made it possible, we have a new framework:
> > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/infrastructure-asfyaml - we can even
> > >> implement
> > >>>>> "airflow-only" .asf.yaml feature, that will not be initially
> > available
> > >> to
> > >>>>> other ASF projects and later we can promote it to be available to
> > >>>>> everyone.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I'd say - if that is really bothering us - let's shape the feature
> > >> rather
> > >>>>> than outright reject it.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I am -1 on this auto-merge feature
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>> Understood :). But let's give it a bit more time as well and maybe
> > >>>>> improve
> > >>>>> it (see above) - unless we really feel we are blocked now - then it
> > >>>>> should
> > >>>>> be as easy as merging an .asf.yaml change to disable it.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 11:18, Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> That’s not a single person, it impacts the committers and the PR
> > >>>>> author
> > >>>>>>>> involved too. I don’t see how team productivity soars here.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 02:39, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> But yes, I also miss the previous "merge because I think it's
> > >> safe"
> > >>>>>>>>> workflow.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I badly miss it. Personally, It hurts my productivity.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> But I think the "require status check" to be green is great for
> > >>>>> "team
> > >>>>>>>>> productivity". Usually when single person is impacted more than
> > >>>>> team in
> > >>>>>>>>> general, it's worse for the person impacted, but team
> > >> productivity
> > >>>>>> soars.
> > >>>>>>>>> J.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 11:03 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> jarek@potiuk.com>
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> Just to add comment:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> a) there was some instability of "celery/boto" hanging tests
> > >>>>> today
> > >>>>>>>>> that is
> > >>>>>>>>>> rather difficult to address - but we worked around it by just
> > >>>>>> removing
> > >>>>>>>>>> "special-tests" from pre-requisite of merging
> > >>>>>>>>>> b) GitHub today (like literally today!) started to be picky on
> > >>>>> "too
> > >>>>>>>>> many
> > >>>>>>>>>> requests" - I addressed it today for both helm chart and our
> > >>>>> release
> > >>>>>>>>> tests
> > >>>>>>>>>> (we are using bearer-token to authenticate and increase the
> > >>>>> limit -
> > >>>>>>>>> and we
> > >>>>>>>>>> added cache on downloading json schema that was downloaded
> > >>>>> "per-test"
> > >>>>>>>>>> c) in cases like the one mentioned above with intermittent
> > >>>>> failures -
> > >>>>>>>>>> simple "rerun failed jobs" (assuming it will succeed after
> > >>>>> rerun) -
> > >>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>> essentially equivalent of "merge" (unless it fails again which
> > >>>>> for me
> > >>>>>>>>> is a
> > >>>>>>>>>> signal of "DO NOT MERGE")
> > >>>>>>>>>> d) we always have the "gitbox" escape hatch - that allows any
> > >>>>>>>>> committer to
> > >>>>>>>>>> push the fix directly, bypassing the limits:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> This is a simple thing for committers:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> git add remote gitbox
> > >>>>>> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/airflow.git
> > >>>>>>>>>> git fetch gitbox
> > >>>>>>>>>> git commit --amend ("add #PR number")
> > >>>>>>>>>> git push gitbox BRANCH_NAME:main (you need to provide your
> > >>>>> apache id
> > >>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>> password)
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> This is a nice escape hatch that we can use as "exceptional
> > >>>>>> workflow" -
> > >>>>>>>>>> and it works - I did it quite a few times over the last few
> > >>>>> days. Not
> > >>>>>>>>> UI
> > >>>>>>>>>> controlled, but IMHO exceptional workflow should be -  well -
> > >>>>>>>>> exceptional.
> > >>>>>>>>>> J.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 8:52 PM Kaxil Naik <
> > >> kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Similar experience as Elad, I am in favor of disabling it
> tbh.
> > >>>>> For
> > >>>>>>>>>>> example,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49727 has a failing
> > >>>>> test as
> > >>>>>>>>> below
> > >>>>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>>> which is not an issue, and test passes locally so I would
> want
> > >>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>> merge it
> > >>>>>>>>>>> but I can't.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> FAILED
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>
> >
> helm-tests/tests/helm_tests/airflow_aux/test_basic_helm_chart.py::TestBaseChartTest::test_priority_classes
> > >>>>>>>>>>> - requests.exceptions.HTTPError: 429 Client Error: Too Many
> > >>>>> Requests
> > >>>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>> url:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>
> >
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/yannh/kubernetes-json-schema/master/v1.29.1-standalone-strict/priorityclass-scheduling-v1.json
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 at 18:29, Jarek Potiuk <jarek@potiuk.com
> >
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 1:46 PM Elad Kalif <
> > >>>>> eladkal@apache.org>
> > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for that Jarek!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I find the lack of ability to merge PRs fast very limiting
> > >>>>> but
> > >>>>>> it
> > >>>>>>>>>>> might
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> just something to get used to.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed. I also see it, but also I got a few manually pushed
> > >>>>> "must
> > >>>>>>>>> fix
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> quickly" to gitbox, and actually I find it really nice -
> > >>>>> because
> > >>>>>> it
> > >>>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> still possible, but it require some extra effort and
> > >>>>> deliberate
> > >>>>>> "ok
> > >>>>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> one really should be pushed to unblock everyone" - as long
> > >> as
> > >>>>> we
> > >>>>>> all
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> (especially those people that are active in the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> #internal-airfow-ci-cd channel) know how to do it and can
> > >> fix
> > >>>>>> things
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> quickly, this is actually a nice way to make it into
> > >>>>> "exceptional"
> > >>>>>>>>>>> workflow
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> - which will push us more in making sure airflow main is
> > >>>>> really
> > >>>>>>>>> "green"
> > >>>>>>>>>>> -
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> which ultimately is our goal to make it as green as possible
> > >>>>> all
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> time.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> What **might help with that** (and also keeping the "enable
> > >>>>> auto
> > >>>>>>>>> merge"
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> might motivate it more to) is to:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> * speed up the builds - we MUST prioritise now ARC (K8S
> > >>>>>> self-hosted
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> runners) to make our builds simply faster - I started a
> > >>>>> discussion
> > >>>>>>>>> and a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> small group of people who can work together to complete it
> > >>>>> after
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Hussein's
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> POC)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> * speed up the image release - with ARM runners (which we
> > >>>>> might be
> > >>>>>>>>> able
> > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> do independently as recently I think we have
> > >>>>> hypervisor-enabled
> > >>>>>> ARM
> > >>>>>>>>>>> images
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> available as public runners as github made it generally
> > >>>>>> available).
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> * speed up the doc builds for airflow-site - we (mainly
> > >>>>> Pavan) are
> > >>>>>>>>>>> close to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> complete offloading of the historical release docs to S3
> > >> and I
> > >>>>>> hope
> > >>>>>>>>> it
> > >>>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> cut down a lot on doc publishing workflows.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> J,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS} Enabled experiment auto-merge feature

[Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>]

Could you show me the email where I start with that? Check
https://lists.apache.org/thread/ofxnb3k5vjqsdlf8wpp7td4n1fjrmmoq again

On Thu, 1 May 2025 at 15:05, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:

> Yeah. It more about the communication. "-1" is - literally - by definition
> "negative" when you start your message with "I am strongly -1 on that".
> There is no further explanation given that changes that perception.
>
> On Thu, May 1, 2025 at 11:32 AM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "-1" was backed with rationale discussion and no one has said it was a
> bad
> > idea but you have said it is "negative".
> >
> > On Thu, 1 May 2025 at 14:59, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > That said, I want to push back on the framing of some feedback as
> > > “negative.” I really appreciate the folks who raised concerns, those
> > > perspectives are vital to making the project stronger and more
> inclusive.
> > >
> > > I think what I wanted to say is that I think we should all exercise
> > > empathy. It's super easy to say "-1" but it's harder to say "It's a
> good
> > > idea but ..". Psychological effect of the "-1" is that it "cuts the
> > wings"
> > > of the person who has some idea and wants to follow it through. The
> > > psychological effect of "cool idea, but" is that it - more often than
> > not -
> > > make the person more energised and inspired to look for a better
> > solution.
> > >
> > > And yes I know different people have different communication style, and
> > > there are cultural differences and all that. But I would personally
> love
> > to
> > > see more "yes, but" than "no".
> > >
> > > That's all I want to say..
> > >
> > > J/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 1, 2025 at 11:23 AM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks for the energy and initiative here.
> > > >
> > > > That said, I want to push back on the framing of some feedback as
> > > > “negative.” I really appreciate the folks who raised concerns, those
> > > > perspectives are vital to making the project stronger and more
> > inclusive.
> > > >
> > > > Let’s make sure we continue to welcome both enthusiasm and critique.
> As
> > > > the ASF
> > > > Code of Conduct <https://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct>
> > > > reminds us, thoughtful disagreement and diverse viewpoints are not
> only
> > > > expected but encouraged. Referring to concerns as “negative”, even
> > > > unintentionally, can discourage people from speaking up, which we
> want
> > to
> > > > avoid.
> > > >
> > > > We all want what’s best for Airflow, and part of that is making sure
> > > > everyone feels safe to contribute, especially when something doesn’t
> > feel
> > > > right.
> > > >
> > > > >Rather than focusing on the negative side, try to figure out a way
> to
> > > make
> > > > it work :)
> > > >
> > > > Back to the proposal from Jens and you -  Yes that (a comment
> allowing
> > to
> > > > still merge/auto-merge the PR) alleviates my concern.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Kaxil
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 1 May 2025 at 12:54, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I really like Jens's line of thought. Rather than focusing on the
> > > > negative
> > > > > side, try to figure out a way to make it work :). That's very
> > > inspiring.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think the original slack proposal of Jens was rather brittle, but
> > it
> > > > made
> > > > > me think that we can actually implement what we need rather
> quickly.
> > > > >
> > > > > Following the `Dependabot` style @rebase - we could implement -
> very
> > > > easily
> > > > > - there are ready actions for that and other projects like apache
> > beam
> > > > are
> > > > > using similar workflows - the comment workflow, where maintainer
> who
> > > > wants
> > > > > to merge  (or auto-merge) such "failing" PR would just comment it
> > > > > appropriately.
> > > > >
> > > > > What we really want is to make the "finalize" check succeed, so if
> > the
> > > PR
> > > > > misses the "Finalize" step, a committer would just have to comment
> it
> > > > with
> > > > > "@bypass-finalize` or `@finalize` or similar. And what it would do,
> > it
> > > > > would use Github API to make the "Finalize" check succeed. There is
> > an
> > > > API
> > > > > for that.
> > > > >
> > > > > That has a few nice properties:
> > > > >
> > > > > * it uses the same GitHub UI we use, no need to have an "escape
> > hatch"
> > > > and
> > > > > separate remote
> > > > > * it follows the pattern we already agreed to some time ago and
> > > generally
> > > > > follow -> we are supposed (as maintainers) to explain when we are
> > > merging
> > > > > such failing PR to show that this is a deliberate action - I
> usually
> > > for
> > > > > example always add "fixed already in main" or "Fixed already by
> #..."
> > > > > comment - you really need a comment in this case explaining that it
> > was
> > > > not
> > > > > accidental "merge".
> > > > > * so if we have such workflow, it would "force" maintainer to make
> a
> > > > > deliberate decision "yes I want to merge it despite failing" and
> > make a
> > > > > comment in the PR
> > > > > * it would only set the "finalize" check to succeed, so still you
> > would
> > > > not
> > > > > be able to merge it without having an approval - this would only
> > bypass
> > > > the
> > > > > "finalize" check
> > > > >
> > > > > WDYT? Would that address all concerns with auto-merge ? Does it
> make
> > > > sense
> > > > > and is it "easy enough" to follow? Or are there any other concerns?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 10:36 PM Pavankumar Gopidesu <
> > > > > gopidesupavan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I am also in line with Jens. The auto-merge feature works well in
> > > > keeping
> > > > > > the CI pipeline green before merging.
> > > > > > However, there are situations where we need to merge changes
> > quickly.
> > > > > > Instead of using an
> > > > > > escape route (which I’m not a fan of, as it carries risks if
> > > something
> > > > > goes
> > > > > > wrong—even though we can revert, it’s still a concern),
> > > > > > we could explore ways to dynamically bypass certain checks when
> > > > necessary
> > > > > > or maybe some help from INFRA?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pavan
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 9:22 PM Jens Scheffler
> > > > > <j_scheffler@gmx.de.invalid
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > As there was a call for more opinions. Here I am :-D
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I understand both positions. As I like AutoMerge very much I am
> > not
> > > > > > > giving up :-D I'd like to keep it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think there is still an option in between. Maybe need to
> draft
> > a
> > > > bit
> > > > > > > of thoughts but I think we could build something still around
> the
> > > > > > > limitations allowing automation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Added a minor thought to the slack chat. But if community rules
> > > > propose
> > > > > > > to push to devchennel let me know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jens
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 30.04.25 11:04, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> > > > > > > > Yeah, And I would encourage everyone to try it and provide
> > > feedback
> > > > > > while
> > > > > > > > it is enabled.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So far we identified a few things (and fix them) that made it
> > > > > > borderline
> > > > > > > > unusable (bug in workflow for UI-only changes, GitHub
> starting
> > to
> > > > > > 429-us
> > > > > > > > with too many requests, and the mysterious "hanging" of the
> > > latest
> > > > > > > > botocore/celery (?) "special tests" -> all that is already
> > > > addressed
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > main, and those issues should not happen (hopefully), so I'd
> > say
> > > we
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > now
> > > > > > > > "truly" see how it might work.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And one comment from my side - indeed, I find it nice
> actually,
> > > but
> > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > definitely not a "deal breaker"- so if others find it too
> > > > > disruptive, I
> > > > > > > am
> > > > > > > > definitely not going to die on this hill, I just thought it
> > does
> > > > > > improve
> > > > > > > > the workflow in the way that it allows for mostly "fire and
> > > forget"
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > you approve the workflow, one thing that it definitely
> improves
> > > is
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > do not have to remember about coming back to merge a request
> > when
> > > > CI
> > > > > > > > succeeds.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > J.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 10:58 AM Kaxil Naik <
> > kaxilnaik@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Forgot to note an additional point in Summary: If we find
> > > anything
> > > > > > > blocking
> > > > > > > >> us in that period, we will merge
> > > > > > > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/50009 to disable
> > > > auto-merge.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 14:26, Kaxil Naik <
> kaxilnaik@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> Jarek & I discussed it on Slack in #internal-airflow-ci-cd.
> > > > Summary
> > > > > > > >> below:
> > > > > > > >>> I have a PR to disable it:
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/50009.
> > > > > > > >>> However, given that many countries will be on holiday on
> May
> > 1
> > > > due
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>> Labour Day, and some teething issues were fixed yesterday,
> we
> > > > will
> > > > > > let
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > >>> run for a few more days so other committers and
> contributors
> > > can
> > > > > get
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >>> chance to try it out and share their experience after the
> > > > > > > >> experiment/trial
> > > > > > > >>> is concluded.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 13:59, Kaxil Naik <
> > kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Whoops yeah.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Yep. Because it did not have all conversations resolved.
> We
> > > > also
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > >>>> "require resolved conversation" as one of the branch
> > > protection
> > > > > > > >>>> conditions.
> > > > > > > >>>> I resolved the conversation and it got merged
> automatically.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Let's adapt it when ready though, I don't see any urgency
> of
> > > > > getting
> > > > > > > >>>> enabling auto-merge or getting it contributed immediately
> to
> > > asf
> > > > > > INFRA
> > > > > > > >> when
> > > > > > > >>>> it isn't critical. It is about priortization
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> I'd say - if that is really bothering us - let's shape the
> > > > feature
> > > > > > > >> rather
> > > > > > > >>>>> than outright reject it.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 12:37, Jarek Potiuk <
> > jarek@potiuk.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 7:55 AM Kaxil Naik <
> > > > kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>> To the point that the original PR is still not merged
> even
> > > > > after I
> > > > > > > >> had
> > > > > > > >>>>>> re-triggered the failed tests yesterday:
> > > > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49727
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Yep. Because it did not have all conversations resolved.
> We
> > > > also
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > >>>>> "require resolved conversation" as one of the branch
> > > protection
> > > > > > > >>>>> conditions.
> > > > > > > >>>>> I resolved the conversation and it got merged
> > automatically.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 11:20, Kaxil Naik <
> > > kaxilnaik@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> The gitbox escape hatch isn't it though -- if we are to
> > > allow
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >>>>> why
> > > > > > > >>>>>> not
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> just allow people to merge it directly from github that
> > to
> > > go
> > > > > via
> > > > > > > >> an
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> "escape hatch".
> > > > > > > >>>>> Generally speaking GitHub has this option. Currently
> > "admins"
> > > > > have
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >>>>> possibility of overriding branch protection (via UI). And
> > it
> > > > > would
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > >>>>> possible - if INFRA will allow it - to possibly add an
> > > > .asf.yaml
> > > > > > > >> feature
> > > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>> also allow branch protection override for all committers
> > or a
> > > > > > subset
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>> committers (PMC Members ? ). This is more of a limitation
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> current
> > > > > > > >>>>> implementation of permissions than a missing feature. If
> we
> > > all
> > > > > > feel
> > > > > > > >> that
> > > > > > > >>>>> the gitbox escape hatch is not enough, we can likely even
> > > > > > contribute
> > > > > > > >>>>> such a
> > > > > > > >>>>> feature to .asf.yaml - if INFRA will be ok with the
> option.
> > > > It's
> > > > > > very
> > > > > > > >>>>> easy
> > > > > > > >>>>> to contribute to - INFRA made it possible, we have a new
> > > > > framework:
> > > > > > > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/infrastructure-asfyaml - we
> can
> > > even
> > > > > > > >> implement
> > > > > > > >>>>> "airflow-only" .asf.yaml feature, that will not be
> > initially
> > > > > > > available
> > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > >>>>> other ASF projects and later we can promote it to be
> > > available
> > > > to
> > > > > > > >>>>> everyone.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> I'd say - if that is really bothering us - let's shape
> the
> > > > > feature
> > > > > > > >> rather
> > > > > > > >>>>> than outright reject it.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> I am -1 on this auto-merge feature
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Understood :). But let's give it a bit more time as well
> > and
> > > > > maybe
> > > > > > > >>>>> improve
> > > > > > > >>>>> it (see above) - unless we really feel we are blocked
> now -
> > > > then
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > >>>>> should
> > > > > > > >>>>> be as easy as merging an .asf.yaml change to disable it.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 11:18, Kaxil Naik <
> > > > kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> That’s not a single person, it impacts the committers
> > and
> > > > the
> > > > > PR
> > > > > > > >>>>> author
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> involved too. I don’t see how team productivity soars
> > > here.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 02:39, Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > jarek@potiuk.com>
> > > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> But yes, I also miss the previous "merge because I
> > think
> > > > it's
> > > > > > > >> safe"
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> workflow.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I badly miss it. Personally, It hurts my
> productivity.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> But I think the "require status check" to be green is
> > > great
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > >>>>> "team
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> productivity". Usually when single person is impacted
> > > more
> > > > > than
> > > > > > > >>>>> team in
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> general, it's worse for the person impacted, but team
> > > > > > > >> productivity
> > > > > > > >>>>>> soars.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 11:03 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > jarek@potiuk.com>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Just to add comment:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> a) there was some instability of "celery/boto"
> hanging
> > > > tests
> > > > > > > >>>>> today
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that is
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> rather difficult to address - but we worked around
> it
> > by
> > > > > just
> > > > > > > >>>>>> removing
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> "special-tests" from pre-requisite of merging
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> b) GitHub today (like literally today!) started to
> be
> > > > picky
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > >>>>> "too
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> many
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> requests" - I addressed it today for both helm chart
> > and
> > > > our
> > > > > > > >>>>> release
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> tests
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> (we are using bearer-token to authenticate and
> > increase
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>> limit -
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and we
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> added cache on downloading json schema that was
> > > downloaded
> > > > > > > >>>>> "per-test"
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> c) in cases like the one mentioned above with
> > > intermittent
> > > > > > > >>>>> failures -
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> simple "rerun failed jobs" (assuming it will succeed
> > > after
> > > > > > > >>>>> rerun) -
> > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> essentially equivalent of "merge" (unless it fails
> > again
> > > > > which
> > > > > > > >>>>> for me
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> is a
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> signal of "DO NOT MERGE")
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> d) we always have the "gitbox" escape hatch - that
> > > allows
> > > > > any
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> committer to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> push the fix directly, bypassing the limits:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> This is a simple thing for committers:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> git add remote gitbox
> > > > > > > >>>>>> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/airflow.git
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> git fetch gitbox
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> git commit --amend ("add #PR number")
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> git push gitbox BRANCH_NAME:main (you need to
> provide
> > > your
> > > > > > > >>>>> apache id
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> password)
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> This is a nice escape hatch that we can use as
> > > > "exceptional
> > > > > > > >>>>>> workflow" -
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> and it works - I did it quite a few times over the
> > last
> > > > few
> > > > > > > >>>>> days. Not
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> UI
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> controlled, but IMHO exceptional workflow should be
> -
> > > > well
> > > > > -
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> exceptional.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 8:52 PM Kaxil Naik <
> > > > > > > >> kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Similar experience as Elad, I am in favor of
> > disabling
> > > it
> > > > > > tbh.
> > > > > > > >>>>> For
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> example,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49727 has a
> > > > failing
> > > > > > > >>>>> test as
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> below
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> which is not an issue, and test passes locally so I
> > > would
> > > > > > want
> > > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> merge it
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> but I can't.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> FAILED
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> helm-tests/tests/helm_tests/airflow_aux/test_basic_helm_chart.py::TestBaseChartTest::test_priority_classes
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> - requests.exceptions.HTTPError: 429 Client Error:
> > Too
> > > > Many
> > > > > > > >>>>> Requests
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> url:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/yannh/kubernetes-json-schema/master/v1.29.1-standalone-strict/priorityclass-scheduling-v1.json
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 at 18:29, Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > jarek@potiuk.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 1:46 PM Elad Kalif <
> > > > > > > >>>>> eladkal@apache.org>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for that Jarek!
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I find the lack of ability to merge PRs fast very
> > > > > limiting
> > > > > > > >>>>> but
> > > > > > > >>>>>> it
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> might
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> just something to get used to.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed. I also see it, but also I got a few
> manually
> > > > > pushed
> > > > > > > >>>>> "must
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> fix
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> quickly" to gitbox, and actually I find it really
> > > nice -
> > > > > > > >>>>> because
> > > > > > > >>>>>> it
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> still possible, but it require some extra effort
> and
> > > > > > > >>>>> deliberate
> > > > > > > >>>>>> "ok
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> one really should be pushed to unblock everyone" -
> > as
> > > > long
> > > > > > > >> as
> > > > > > > >>>>> we
> > > > > > > >>>>>> all
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (especially those people that are active in the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> #internal-airfow-ci-cd channel) know how to do it
> > and
> > > > can
> > > > > > > >> fix
> > > > > > > >>>>>> things
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> quickly, this is actually a nice way to make it
> into
> > > > > > > >>>>> "exceptional"
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> workflow
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - which will push us more in making sure airflow
> > main
> > > is
> > > > > > > >>>>> really
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> "green"
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> -
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> which ultimately is our goal to make it as green
> as
> > > > > possible
> > > > > > > >>>>> all
> > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> time.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> What **might help with that** (and also keeping
> the
> > > > > "enable
> > > > > > > >>>>> auto
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> merge"
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> might motivate it more to) is to:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * speed up the builds - we MUST prioritise now ARC
> > > (K8S
> > > > > > > >>>>>> self-hosted
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> runners) to make our builds simply faster - I
> > started
> > > a
> > > > > > > >>>>> discussion
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and a
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> small group of people who can work together to
> > > complete
> > > > it
> > > > > > > >>>>> after
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hussein's
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> POC)
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * speed up the image release - with ARM runners
> > (which
> > > > we
> > > > > > > >>>>> might be
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> able
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> do independently as recently I think we have
> > > > > > > >>>>> hypervisor-enabled
> > > > > > > >>>>>> ARM
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> images
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> available as public runners as github made it
> > > generally
> > > > > > > >>>>>> available).
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * speed up the doc builds for airflow-site - we
> > > (mainly
> > > > > > > >>>>> Pavan) are
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> close to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> complete offloading of the historical release docs
> > to
> > > S3
> > > > > > > >> and I
> > > > > > > >>>>>> hope
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cut down a lot on doc publishing workflows.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> J,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
> > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS} Enabled experiment auto-merge feature

[Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>]

Yeah. It more about the communication. "-1" is - literally - by definition
"negative" when you start your message with "I am strongly -1 on that".
There is no further explanation given that changes that perception.

On Thu, May 1, 2025 at 11:32 AM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "-1" was backed with rationale discussion and no one has said it was a bad
> idea but you have said it is "negative".
>
> On Thu, 1 May 2025 at 14:59, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
>
> > > That said, I want to push back on the framing of some feedback as
> > “negative.” I really appreciate the folks who raised concerns, those
> > perspectives are vital to making the project stronger and more inclusive.
> >
> > I think what I wanted to say is that I think we should all exercise
> > empathy. It's super easy to say "-1" but it's harder to say "It's a good
> > idea but ..". Psychological effect of the "-1" is that it "cuts the
> wings"
> > of the person who has some idea and wants to follow it through. The
> > psychological effect of "cool idea, but" is that it - more often than
> not -
> > make the person more energised and inspired to look for a better
> solution.
> >
> > And yes I know different people have different communication style, and
> > there are cultural differences and all that. But I would personally love
> to
> > see more "yes, but" than "no".
> >
> > That's all I want to say..
> >
> > J/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 1, 2025 at 11:23 AM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the energy and initiative here.
> > >
> > > That said, I want to push back on the framing of some feedback as
> > > “negative.” I really appreciate the folks who raised concerns, those
> > > perspectives are vital to making the project stronger and more
> inclusive.
> > >
> > > Let’s make sure we continue to welcome both enthusiasm and critique. As
> > > the ASF
> > > Code of Conduct <https://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct>
> > > reminds us, thoughtful disagreement and diverse viewpoints are not only
> > > expected but encouraged. Referring to concerns as “negative”, even
> > > unintentionally, can discourage people from speaking up, which we want
> to
> > > avoid.
> > >
> > > We all want what’s best for Airflow, and part of that is making sure
> > > everyone feels safe to contribute, especially when something doesn’t
> feel
> > > right.
> > >
> > > >Rather than focusing on the negative side, try to figure out a way to
> > make
> > > it work :)
> > >
> > > Back to the proposal from Jens and you -  Yes that (a comment allowing
> to
> > > still merge/auto-merge the PR) alleviates my concern.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Kaxil
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 1 May 2025 at 12:54, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I really like Jens's line of thought. Rather than focusing on the
> > > negative
> > > > side, try to figure out a way to make it work :). That's very
> > inspiring.
> > > >
> > > > I think the original slack proposal of Jens was rather brittle, but
> it
> > > made
> > > > me think that we can actually implement what we need rather quickly.
> > > >
> > > > Following the `Dependabot` style @rebase - we could implement - very
> > > easily
> > > > - there are ready actions for that and other projects like apache
> beam
> > > are
> > > > using similar workflows - the comment workflow, where maintainer who
> > > wants
> > > > to merge  (or auto-merge) such "failing" PR would just comment it
> > > > appropriately.
> > > >
> > > > What we really want is to make the "finalize" check succeed, so if
> the
> > PR
> > > > misses the "Finalize" step, a committer would just have to comment it
> > > with
> > > > "@bypass-finalize` or `@finalize` or similar. And what it would do,
> it
> > > > would use Github API to make the "Finalize" check succeed. There is
> an
> > > API
> > > > for that.
> > > >
> > > > That has a few nice properties:
> > > >
> > > > * it uses the same GitHub UI we use, no need to have an "escape
> hatch"
> > > and
> > > > separate remote
> > > > * it follows the pattern we already agreed to some time ago and
> > generally
> > > > follow -> we are supposed (as maintainers) to explain when we are
> > merging
> > > > such failing PR to show that this is a deliberate action - I usually
> > for
> > > > example always add "fixed already in main" or "Fixed already by #..."
> > > > comment - you really need a comment in this case explaining that it
> was
> > > not
> > > > accidental "merge".
> > > > * so if we have such workflow, it would "force" maintainer to make a
> > > > deliberate decision "yes I want to merge it despite failing" and
> make a
> > > > comment in the PR
> > > > * it would only set the "finalize" check to succeed, so still you
> would
> > > not
> > > > be able to merge it without having an approval - this would only
> bypass
> > > the
> > > > "finalize" check
> > > >
> > > > WDYT? Would that address all concerns with auto-merge ? Does it make
> > > sense
> > > > and is it "easy enough" to follow? Or are there any other concerns?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 10:36 PM Pavankumar Gopidesu <
> > > > gopidesupavan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I am also in line with Jens. The auto-merge feature works well in
> > > keeping
> > > > > the CI pipeline green before merging.
> > > > > However, there are situations where we need to merge changes
> quickly.
> > > > > Instead of using an
> > > > > escape route (which I’m not a fan of, as it carries risks if
> > something
> > > > goes
> > > > > wrong—even though we can revert, it’s still a concern),
> > > > > we could explore ways to dynamically bypass certain checks when
> > > necessary
> > > > > or maybe some help from INFRA?
> > > > >
> > > > > Pavan
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 9:22 PM Jens Scheffler
> > > > <j_scheffler@gmx.de.invalid
> > > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > As there was a call for more opinions. Here I am :-D
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I understand both positions. As I like AutoMerge very much I am
> not
> > > > > > giving up :-D I'd like to keep it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think there is still an option in between. Maybe need to draft
> a
> > > bit
> > > > > > of thoughts but I think we could build something still around the
> > > > > > limitations allowing automation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Added a minor thought to the slack chat. But if community rules
> > > propose
> > > > > > to push to devchennel let me know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jens
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 30.04.25 11:04, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> > > > > > > Yeah, And I would encourage everyone to try it and provide
> > feedback
> > > > > while
> > > > > > > it is enabled.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So far we identified a few things (and fix them) that made it
> > > > > borderline
> > > > > > > unusable (bug in workflow for UI-only changes, GitHub starting
> to
> > > > > 429-us
> > > > > > > with too many requests, and the mysterious "hanging" of the
> > latest
> > > > > > > botocore/celery (?) "special tests" -> all that is already
> > > addressed
> > > > in
> > > > > > > main, and those issues should not happen (hopefully), so I'd
> say
> > we
> > > > can
> > > > > > now
> > > > > > > "truly" see how it might work.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And one comment from my side - indeed, I find it nice actually,
> > but
> > > > > it's
> > > > > > > definitely not a "deal breaker"- so if others find it too
> > > > disruptive, I
> > > > > > am
> > > > > > > definitely not going to die on this hill, I just thought it
> does
> > > > > improve
> > > > > > > the workflow in the way that it allows for mostly "fire and
> > forget"
> > > > > when
> > > > > > > you approve the workflow, one thing that it definitely improves
> > is
> > > > that
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > do not have to remember about coming back to merge a request
> when
> > > CI
> > > > > > > succeeds.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > J.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 10:58 AM Kaxil Naik <
> kaxilnaik@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Forgot to note an additional point in Summary: If we find
> > anything
> > > > > > blocking
> > > > > > >> us in that period, we will merge
> > > > > > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/50009 to disable
> > > auto-merge.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 14:26, Kaxil Naik <kaxilnaik@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> Jarek & I discussed it on Slack in #internal-airflow-ci-cd.
> > > Summary
> > > > > > >> below:
> > > > > > >>> I have a PR to disable it:
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/50009.
> > > > > > >>> However, given that many countries will be on holiday on May
> 1
> > > due
> > > > to
> > > > > > >>> Labour Day, and some teething issues were fixed yesterday, we
> > > will
> > > > > let
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > >>> run for a few more days so other committers and contributors
> > can
> > > > get
> > > > > a
> > > > > > >>> chance to try it out and share their experience after the
> > > > > > >> experiment/trial
> > > > > > >>> is concluded.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 13:59, Kaxil Naik <
> kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> Whoops yeah.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Yep. Because it did not have all conversations resolved. We
> > > also
> > > > > have
> > > > > > >>>> "require resolved conversation" as one of the branch
> > protection
> > > > > > >>>> conditions.
> > > > > > >>>> I resolved the conversation and it got merged automatically.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Let's adapt it when ready though, I don't see any urgency of
> > > > getting
> > > > > > >>>> enabling auto-merge or getting it contributed immediately to
> > asf
> > > > > INFRA
> > > > > > >> when
> > > > > > >>>> it isn't critical. It is about priortization
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> I'd say - if that is really bothering us - let's shape the
> > > feature
> > > > > > >> rather
> > > > > > >>>>> than outright reject it.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 12:37, Jarek Potiuk <
> jarek@potiuk.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 7:55 AM Kaxil Naik <
> > > kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>> To the point that the original PR is still not merged even
> > > > after I
> > > > > > >> had
> > > > > > >>>>>> re-triggered the failed tests yesterday:
> > > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49727
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Yep. Because it did not have all conversations resolved. We
> > > also
> > > > > have
> > > > > > >>>>> "require resolved conversation" as one of the branch
> > protection
> > > > > > >>>>> conditions.
> > > > > > >>>>> I resolved the conversation and it got merged
> automatically.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 11:20, Kaxil Naik <
> > kaxilnaik@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>> The gitbox escape hatch isn't it though -- if we are to
> > allow
> > > > > that
> > > > > > >>>>> why
> > > > > > >>>>>> not
> > > > > > >>>>>>> just allow people to merge it directly from github that
> to
> > go
> > > > via
> > > > > > >> an
> > > > > > >>>>>>> "escape hatch".
> > > > > > >>>>> Generally speaking GitHub has this option. Currently
> "admins"
> > > > have
> > > > > a
> > > > > > >>>>> possibility of overriding branch protection (via UI). And
> it
> > > > would
> > > > > be
> > > > > > >>>>> possible - if INFRA will allow it - to possibly add an
> > > .asf.yaml
> > > > > > >> feature
> > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>> also allow branch protection override for all committers
> or a
> > > > > subset
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>> committers (PMC Members ? ). This is more of a limitation
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > >> current
> > > > > > >>>>> implementation of permissions than a missing feature. If we
> > all
> > > > > feel
> > > > > > >> that
> > > > > > >>>>> the gitbox escape hatch is not enough, we can likely even
> > > > > contribute
> > > > > > >>>>> such a
> > > > > > >>>>> feature to .asf.yaml - if INFRA will be ok with the option.
> > > It's
> > > > > very
> > > > > > >>>>> easy
> > > > > > >>>>> to contribute to - INFRA made it possible, we have a new
> > > > framework:
> > > > > > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/infrastructure-asfyaml - we can
> > even
> > > > > > >> implement
> > > > > > >>>>> "airflow-only" .asf.yaml feature, that will not be
> initially
> > > > > > available
> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >>>>> other ASF projects and later we can promote it to be
> > available
> > > to
> > > > > > >>>>> everyone.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> I'd say - if that is really bothering us - let's shape the
> > > > feature
> > > > > > >> rather
> > > > > > >>>>> than outright reject it.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> I am -1 on this auto-merge feature
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Understood :). But let's give it a bit more time as well
> and
> > > > maybe
> > > > > > >>>>> improve
> > > > > > >>>>> it (see above) - unless we really feel we are blocked now -
> > > then
> > > > it
> > > > > > >>>>> should
> > > > > > >>>>> be as easy as merging an .asf.yaml change to disable it.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 11:18, Kaxil Naik <
> > > kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> That’s not a single person, it impacts the committers
> and
> > > the
> > > > PR
> > > > > > >>>>> author
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> involved too. I don’t see how team productivity soars
> > here.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 02:39, Jarek Potiuk <
> > > jarek@potiuk.com>
> > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> But yes, I also miss the previous "merge because I
> think
> > > it's
> > > > > > >> safe"
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> workflow.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I badly miss it. Personally, It hurts my productivity.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> But I think the "require status check" to be green is
> > great
> > > > for
> > > > > > >>>>> "team
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> productivity". Usually when single person is impacted
> > more
> > > > than
> > > > > > >>>>> team in
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> general, it's worse for the person impacted, but team
> > > > > > >> productivity
> > > > > > >>>>>> soars.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 11:03 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > jarek@potiuk.com>
> > > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Just to add comment:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> a) there was some instability of "celery/boto" hanging
> > > tests
> > > > > > >>>>> today
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that is
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> rather difficult to address - but we worked around it
> by
> > > > just
> > > > > > >>>>>> removing
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> "special-tests" from pre-requisite of merging
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> b) GitHub today (like literally today!) started to be
> > > picky
> > > > on
> > > > > > >>>>> "too
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> many
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> requests" - I addressed it today for both helm chart
> and
> > > our
> > > > > > >>>>> release
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> tests
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> (we are using bearer-token to authenticate and
> increase
> > > the
> > > > > > >>>>> limit -
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and we
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> added cache on downloading json schema that was
> > downloaded
> > > > > > >>>>> "per-test"
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> c) in cases like the one mentioned above with
> > intermittent
> > > > > > >>>>> failures -
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> simple "rerun failed jobs" (assuming it will succeed
> > after
> > > > > > >>>>> rerun) -
> > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> essentially equivalent of "merge" (unless it fails
> again
> > > > which
> > > > > > >>>>> for me
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> is a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> signal of "DO NOT MERGE")
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> d) we always have the "gitbox" escape hatch - that
> > allows
> > > > any
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> committer to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> push the fix directly, bypassing the limits:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> This is a simple thing for committers:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> git add remote gitbox
> > > > > > >>>>>> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/airflow.git
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> git fetch gitbox
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> git commit --amend ("add #PR number")
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> git push gitbox BRANCH_NAME:main (you need to provide
> > your
> > > > > > >>>>> apache id
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> password)
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> This is a nice escape hatch that we can use as
> > > "exceptional
> > > > > > >>>>>> workflow" -
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> and it works - I did it quite a few times over the
> last
> > > few
> > > > > > >>>>> days. Not
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> UI
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> controlled, but IMHO exceptional workflow should be -
> > > well
> > > > -
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> exceptional.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 8:52 PM Kaxil Naik <
> > > > > > >> kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Similar experience as Elad, I am in favor of
> disabling
> > it
> > > > > tbh.
> > > > > > >>>>> For
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> example,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49727 has a
> > > failing
> > > > > > >>>>> test as
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> below
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> which is not an issue, and test passes locally so I
> > would
> > > > > want
> > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> merge it
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> but I can't.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> FAILED
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> helm-tests/tests/helm_tests/airflow_aux/test_basic_helm_chart.py::TestBaseChartTest::test_priority_classes
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> - requests.exceptions.HTTPError: 429 Client Error:
> Too
> > > Many
> > > > > > >>>>> Requests
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> url:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/yannh/kubernetes-json-schema/master/v1.29.1-standalone-strict/priorityclass-scheduling-v1.json
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 at 18:29, Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > jarek@potiuk.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 1:46 PM Elad Kalif <
> > > > > > >>>>> eladkal@apache.org>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for that Jarek!
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I find the lack of ability to merge PRs fast very
> > > > limiting
> > > > > > >>>>> but
> > > > > > >>>>>> it
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> might
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> just something to get used to.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed. I also see it, but also I got a few manually
> > > > pushed
> > > > > > >>>>> "must
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> fix
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> quickly" to gitbox, and actually I find it really
> > nice -
> > > > > > >>>>> because
> > > > > > >>>>>> it
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> still possible, but it require some extra effort and
> > > > > > >>>>> deliberate
> > > > > > >>>>>> "ok
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> one really should be pushed to unblock everyone" -
> as
> > > long
> > > > > > >> as
> > > > > > >>>>> we
> > > > > > >>>>>> all
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (especially those people that are active in the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> #internal-airfow-ci-cd channel) know how to do it
> and
> > > can
> > > > > > >> fix
> > > > > > >>>>>> things
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> quickly, this is actually a nice way to make it into
> > > > > > >>>>> "exceptional"
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> workflow
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - which will push us more in making sure airflow
> main
> > is
> > > > > > >>>>> really
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> "green"
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> -
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> which ultimately is our goal to make it as green as
> > > > possible
> > > > > > >>>>> all
> > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> time.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> What **might help with that** (and also keeping the
> > > > "enable
> > > > > > >>>>> auto
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> merge"
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> might motivate it more to) is to:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * speed up the builds - we MUST prioritise now ARC
> > (K8S
> > > > > > >>>>>> self-hosted
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> runners) to make our builds simply faster - I
> started
> > a
> > > > > > >>>>> discussion
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> small group of people who can work together to
> > complete
> > > it
> > > > > > >>>>> after
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hussein's
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> POC)
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * speed up the image release - with ARM runners
> (which
> > > we
> > > > > > >>>>> might be
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> able
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> do independently as recently I think we have
> > > > > > >>>>> hypervisor-enabled
> > > > > > >>>>>> ARM
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> images
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> available as public runners as github made it
> > generally
> > > > > > >>>>>> available).
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * speed up the doc builds for airflow-site - we
> > (mainly
> > > > > > >>>>> Pavan) are
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> close to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> complete offloading of the historical release docs
> to
> > S3
> > > > > > >> and I
> > > > > > >>>>>> hope
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cut down a lot on doc publishing workflows.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> J,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS} Enabled experiment auto-merge feature

[Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>]

FYI, I changed my mind about auto-merging.

In the last couple of days I merged many PRs quickly when they were still
running because I "knew" they were ok. It would be huge impact if I had to
wait for all of them to succeed. I think now that the marginal improvement
in "focus" when reviewing the PRs is not worth it.

On Thu, May 1, 2025 at 11:38 AM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That's what I was saying. But welcoming discussion or feedback and then
> terming it negative is a no-go, Jarek.
>
>
>
> On Thu, 1 May 2025 at 15:07, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
>
> > I propose - let's not be defensive or offensive, but try to hear each
> other
> > and improve things in the future :).
> >
> > On Thu, May 1, 2025 at 11:35 AM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >But I would personally love to see more "yes, but" than "no".
> > >
> > > Saying "would love to hear what you think" in the original message
> > followed
> > > by terming "negative" is not the way to collaborate.
> > >
> > > On Thu, 1 May 2025 at 15:01, Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "-1" was backed with rationale discussion and no one has said it was
> a
> > > bad
> > > > idea but you have said it is "negative".
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 1 May 2025 at 14:59, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> > That said, I want to push back on the framing of some feedback as
> > > >> “negative.” I really appreciate the folks who raised concerns, those
> > > >> perspectives are vital to making the project stronger and more
> > > inclusive.
> > > >>
> > > >> I think what I wanted to say is that I think we should all exercise
> > > >> empathy. It's super easy to say "-1" but it's harder to say "It's a
> > good
> > > >> idea but ..". Psychological effect of the "-1" is that it "cuts the
> > > wings"
> > > >> of the person who has some idea and wants to follow it through. The
> > > >> psychological effect of "cool idea, but" is that it - more often
> than
> > > not
> > > >> -
> > > >> make the person more energised and inspired to look for a better
> > > solution.
> > > >>
> > > >> And yes I know different people have different communication style,
> > and
> > > >> there are cultural differences and all that. But I would personally
> > love
> > > >> to
> > > >> see more "yes, but" than "no".
> > > >>
> > > >> That's all I want to say..
> > > >>
> > > >> J/
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, May 1, 2025 at 11:23 AM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Thanks for the energy and initiative here.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > That said, I want to push back on the framing of some feedback as
> > > >> > “negative.” I really appreciate the folks who raised concerns,
> those
> > > >> > perspectives are vital to making the project stronger and more
> > > >> inclusive.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Let’s make sure we continue to welcome both enthusiasm and
> critique.
> > > As
> > > >> > the ASF
> > > >> > Code of Conduct <
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct
> > >
> > > >> > reminds us, thoughtful disagreement and diverse viewpoints are not
> > > only
> > > >> > expected but encouraged. Referring to concerns as “negative”, even
> > > >> > unintentionally, can discourage people from speaking up, which we
> > want
> > > >> to
> > > >> > avoid.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > We all want what’s best for Airflow, and part of that is making
> sure
> > > >> > everyone feels safe to contribute, especially when something
> doesn’t
> > > >> feel
> > > >> > right.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > >Rather than focusing on the negative side, try to figure out a
> way
> > to
> > > >> make
> > > >> > it work :)
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Back to the proposal from Jens and you -  Yes that (a comment
> > allowing
> > > >> to
> > > >> > still merge/auto-merge the PR) alleviates my concern.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Regards,
> > > >> > Kaxil
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Thu, 1 May 2025 at 12:54, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>
> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > I really like Jens's line of thought. Rather than focusing on
> the
> > > >> > negative
> > > >> > > side, try to figure out a way to make it work :). That's very
> > > >> inspiring.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I think the original slack proposal of Jens was rather brittle,
> > but
> > > it
> > > >> > made
> > > >> > > me think that we can actually implement what we need rather
> > quickly.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Following the `Dependabot` style @rebase - we could implement -
> > very
> > > >> > easily
> > > >> > > - there are ready actions for that and other projects like
> apache
> > > beam
> > > >> > are
> > > >> > > using similar workflows - the comment workflow, where maintainer
> > who
> > > >> > wants
> > > >> > > to merge  (or auto-merge) such "failing" PR would just comment
> it
> > > >> > > appropriately.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > What we really want is to make the "finalize" check succeed, so
> if
> > > >> the PR
> > > >> > > misses the "Finalize" step, a committer would just have to
> comment
> > > it
> > > >> > with
> > > >> > > "@bypass-finalize` or `@finalize` or similar. And what it would
> > do,
> > > it
> > > >> > > would use Github API to make the "Finalize" check succeed. There
> > is
> > > an
> > > >> > API
> > > >> > > for that.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > That has a few nice properties:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > * it uses the same GitHub UI we use, no need to have an "escape
> > > hatch"
> > > >> > and
> > > >> > > separate remote
> > > >> > > * it follows the pattern we already agreed to some time ago and
> > > >> generally
> > > >> > > follow -> we are supposed (as maintainers) to explain when we
> are
> > > >> merging
> > > >> > > such failing PR to show that this is a deliberate action - I
> > usually
> > > >> for
> > > >> > > example always add "fixed already in main" or "Fixed already by
> > > #..."
> > > >> > > comment - you really need a comment in this case explaining that
> > it
> > > >> was
> > > >> > not
> > > >> > > accidental "merge".
> > > >> > > * so if we have such workflow, it would "force" maintainer to
> > make a
> > > >> > > deliberate decision "yes I want to merge it despite failing" and
> > > make
> > > >> a
> > > >> > > comment in the PR
> > > >> > > * it would only set the "finalize" check to succeed, so still
> you
> > > >> would
> > > >> > not
> > > >> > > be able to merge it without having an approval - this would only
> > > >> bypass
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > "finalize" check
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > WDYT? Would that address all concerns with auto-merge ? Does it
> > make
> > > >> > sense
> > > >> > > and is it "easy enough" to follow? Or are there any other
> > concerns?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 10:36 PM Pavankumar Gopidesu <
> > > >> > > gopidesupavan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > I am also in line with Jens. The auto-merge feature works well
> > in
> > > >> > keeping
> > > >> > > > the CI pipeline green before merging.
> > > >> > > > However, there are situations where we need to merge changes
> > > >> quickly.
> > > >> > > > Instead of using an
> > > >> > > > escape route (which I’m not a fan of, as it carries risks if
> > > >> something
> > > >> > > goes
> > > >> > > > wrong—even though we can revert, it’s still a concern),
> > > >> > > > we could explore ways to dynamically bypass certain checks
> when
> > > >> > necessary
> > > >> > > > or maybe some help from INFRA?
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Pavan
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 9:22 PM Jens Scheffler
> > > >> > > <j_scheffler@gmx.de.invalid
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > As there was a call for more opinions. Here I am :-D
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > I understand both positions. As I like AutoMerge very much I
> > am
> > > >> not
> > > >> > > > > giving up :-D I'd like to keep it.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > I think there is still an option in between. Maybe need to
> > > draft a
> > > >> > bit
> > > >> > > > > of thoughts but I think we could build something still
> around
> > > the
> > > >> > > > > limitations allowing automation.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Added a minor thought to the slack chat. But if community
> > rules
> > > >> > propose
> > > >> > > > > to push to devchennel let me know.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Jens
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > On 30.04.25 11:04, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > Yeah, And I would encourage everyone to try it and provide
> > > >> feedback
> > > >> > > > while
> > > >> > > > > > it is enabled.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > So far we identified a few things (and fix them) that made
> > it
> > > >> > > > borderline
> > > >> > > > > > unusable (bug in workflow for UI-only changes, GitHub
> > starting
> > > >> to
> > > >> > > > 429-us
> > > >> > > > > > with too many requests, and the mysterious "hanging" of
> the
> > > >> latest
> > > >> > > > > > botocore/celery (?) "special tests" -> all that is already
> > > >> > addressed
> > > >> > > in
> > > >> > > > > > main, and those issues should not happen (hopefully), so
> I'd
> > > >> say we
> > > >> > > can
> > > >> > > > > now
> > > >> > > > > > "truly" see how it might work.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > And one comment from my side - indeed, I find it nice
> > > actually,
> > > >> but
> > > >> > > > it's
> > > >> > > > > > definitely not a "deal breaker"- so if others find it too
> > > >> > > disruptive, I
> > > >> > > > > am
> > > >> > > > > > definitely not going to die on this hill, I just thought
> it
> > > does
> > > >> > > > improve
> > > >> > > > > > the workflow in the way that it allows for mostly "fire
> and
> > > >> forget"
> > > >> > > > when
> > > >> > > > > > you approve the workflow, one thing that it definitely
> > > improves
> > > >> is
> > > >> > > that
> > > >> > > > > you
> > > >> > > > > > do not have to remember about coming back to merge a
> request
> > > >> when
> > > >> > CI
> > > >> > > > > > succeeds.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > J.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 10:58 AM Kaxil Naik <
> > > >> kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >> Forgot to note an additional point in Summary: If we find
> > > >> anything
> > > >> > > > > blocking
> > > >> > > > > >> us in that period, we will merge
> > > >> > > > > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/50009 to disable
> > > >> > auto-merge.
> > > >> > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > >> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 14:26, Kaxil Naik <
> > > kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > >>> Jarek & I discussed it on Slack in
> > #internal-airflow-ci-cd.
> > > >> > Summary
> > > >> > > > > >> below:
> > > >> > > > > >>> I have a PR to disable it:
> > > >> > > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/50009.
> > > >> > > > > >>> However, given that many countries will be on holiday on
> > > May 1
> > > >> > due
> > > >> > > to
> > > >> > > > > >>> Labour Day, and some teething issues were fixed
> yesterday,
> > > we
> > > >> > will
> > > >> > > > let
> > > >> > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > >>> run for a few more days so other committers and
> > contributors
> > > >> can
> > > >> > > get
> > > >> > > > a
> > > >> > > > > >>> chance to try it out and share their experience after
> the
> > > >> > > > > >> experiment/trial
> > > >> > > > > >>> is concluded.
> > > >> > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > >>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 13:59, Kaxil Naik <
> > > kaxilnaik@gmail.com
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>> Whoops yeah.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> Yep. Because it did not have all conversations
> resolved.
> > > We
> > > >> > also
> > > >> > > > have
> > > >> > > > > >>>> "require resolved conversation" as one of the branch
> > > >> protection
> > > >> > > > > >>>> conditions.
> > > >> > > > > >>>> I resolved the conversation and it got merged
> > > automatically.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>> Let's adapt it when ready though, I don't see any
> urgency
> > > of
> > > >> > > getting
> > > >> > > > > >>>> enabling auto-merge or getting it contributed
> immediately
> > > to
> > > >> asf
> > > >> > > > INFRA
> > > >> > > > > >> when
> > > >> > > > > >>>> it isn't critical. It is about priortization
> > > >> > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>> I'd say - if that is really bothering us - let's shape
> > the
> > > >> > feature
> > > >> > > > > >> rather
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> than outright reject it.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 12:37, Jarek Potiuk <
> > > jarek@potiuk.com
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 7:55 AM Kaxil Naik <
> > > >> > kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>> To the point that the original PR is still not merged
> > > even
> > > >> > > after I
> > > >> > > > > >> had
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>> re-triggered the failed tests yesterday:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49727
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> Yep. Because it did not have all conversations
> resolved.
> > > We
> > > >> > also
> > > >> > > > have
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> "require resolved conversation" as one of the branch
> > > >> protection
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> conditions.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> I resolved the conversation and it got merged
> > > automatically.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 11:20, Kaxil Naik <
> > > >> kaxilnaik@gmail.com
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> The gitbox escape hatch isn't it though -- if we are
> > to
> > > >> allow
> > > >> > > > that
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> why
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>> not
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> just allow people to merge it directly from github
> > that
> > > >> to go
> > > >> > > via
> > > >> > > > > >> an
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> "escape hatch".
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> Generally speaking GitHub has this option. Currently
> > > >> "admins"
> > > >> > > have
> > > >> > > > a
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> possibility of overriding branch protection (via UI).
> > And
> > > it
> > > >> > > would
> > > >> > > > be
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> possible - if INFRA will allow it - to possibly add an
> > > >> > .asf.yaml
> > > >> > > > > >> feature
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> to
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> also allow branch protection override for all
> committers
> > > or
> > > >> a
> > > >> > > > subset
> > > >> > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> the
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> committers (PMC Members ? ). This is more of a
> > limitation
> > > of
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > >> current
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> implementation of permissions than a missing feature.
> If
> > > we
> > > >> all
> > > >> > > > feel
> > > >> > > > > >> that
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> the gitbox escape hatch is not enough, we can likely
> > even
> > > >> > > > contribute
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> such a
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> feature to .asf.yaml - if INFRA will be ok with the
> > > option.
> > > >> > It's
> > > >> > > > very
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> easy
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> to contribute to - INFRA made it possible, we have a
> new
> > > >> > > framework:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/infrastructure-asfyaml - we
> > can
> > > >> even
> > > >> > > > > >> implement
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> "airflow-only" .asf.yaml feature, that will not be
> > > initially
> > > >> > > > > available
> > > >> > > > > >> to
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> other ASF projects and later we can promote it to be
> > > >> available
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> everyone.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> I'd say - if that is really bothering us - let's shape
> > the
> > > >> > > feature
> > > >> > > > > >> rather
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> than outright reject it.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> I am -1 on this auto-merge feature
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> Understood :). But let's give it a bit more time as
> well
> > > and
> > > >> > > maybe
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> improve
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> it (see above) - unless we really feel we are blocked
> > now
> > > -
> > > >> > then
> > > >> > > it
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> should
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> be as easy as merging an .asf.yaml change to disable
> it.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 11:18, Kaxil Naik <
> > > >> > kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> That’s not a single person, it impacts the
> committers
> > > and
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > PR
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> author
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> involved too. I don’t see how team productivity
> soars
> > > >> here.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 02:39, Jarek Potiuk <
> > > >> > jarek@potiuk.com>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> But yes, I also miss the previous "merge because I
> > > think
> > > >> > it's
> > > >> > > > > >> safe"
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> workflow.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> I badly miss it. Personally, It hurts my
> > productivity.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> But I think the "require status check" to be green
> > is
> > > >> great
> > > >> > > for
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> "team
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> productivity". Usually when single person is
> > impacted
> > > >> more
> > > >> > > than
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> team in
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> general, it's worse for the person impacted, but
> > team
> > > >> > > > > >> productivity
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>> soars.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> J.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 11:03 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > >> > > > jarek@potiuk.com>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Just to add comment:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> a) there was some instability of "celery/boto"
> > > hanging
> > > >> > tests
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> today
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> that is
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> rather difficult to address - but we worked
> around
> > it
> > > >> by
> > > >> > > just
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>> removing
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> "special-tests" from pre-requisite of merging
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> b) GitHub today (like literally today!) started
> to
> > be
> > > >> > picky
> > > >> > > on
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> "too
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> many
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> requests" - I addressed it today for both helm
> > chart
> > > >> and
> > > >> > our
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> release
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> tests
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> (we are using bearer-token to authenticate and
> > > increase
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> limit -
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> and we
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> added cache on downloading json schema that was
> > > >> downloaded
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> "per-test"
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> c) in cases like the one mentioned above with
> > > >> intermittent
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> failures -
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> simple "rerun failed jobs" (assuming it will
> > succeed
> > > >> after
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> rerun) -
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> essentially equivalent of "merge" (unless it
> fails
> > > >> again
> > > >> > > which
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> for me
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> is a
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> signal of "DO NOT MERGE")
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> d) we always have the "gitbox" escape hatch -
> that
> > > >> allows
> > > >> > > any
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> committer to
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> push the fix directly, bypassing the limits:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> This is a simple thing for committers:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> git add remote gitbox
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/airflow.git
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> git fetch gitbox
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> git commit --amend ("add #PR number")
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> git push gitbox BRANCH_NAME:main (you need to
> > provide
> > > >> your
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> apache id
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> password)
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> This is a nice escape hatch that we can use as
> > > >> > "exceptional
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>> workflow" -
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> and it works - I did it quite a few times over
> the
> > > last
> > > >> > few
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> days. Not
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> UI
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> controlled, but IMHO exceptional workflow should
> > be -
> > > >> > well
> > > >> > > -
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> exceptional.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 8:52 PM Kaxil Naik <
> > > >> > > > > >> kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Similar experience as Elad, I am in favor of
> > > >> disabling it
> > > >> > > > tbh.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> For
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> example,
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49727
> has
> > a
> > > >> > failing
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> test as
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> below
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> which is not an issue, and test passes locally
> so
> > I
> > > >> would
> > > >> > > > want
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> to
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> merge it
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> but I can't.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> FAILED
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> helm-tests/tests/helm_tests/airflow_aux/test_basic_helm_chart.py::TestBaseChartTest::test_priority_classes
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> - requests.exceptions.HTTPError: 429 Client
> Error:
> > > Too
> > > >> > Many
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> Requests
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> for
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> url:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/yannh/kubernetes-json-schema/master/v1.29.1-standalone-strict/priorityclass-scheduling-v1.json
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 at 18:29, Jarek Potiuk <
> > > >> > > jarek@potiuk.com
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 1:46 PM Elad Kalif <
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> eladkal@apache.org>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for that Jarek!
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I find the lack of ability to merge PRs fast
> > very
> > > >> > > limiting
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> but
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>> it
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> might
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> just something to get used to.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed. I also see it, but also I got a few
> > > manually
> > > >> > > pushed
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> "must
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> fix
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> quickly" to gitbox, and actually I find it
> really
> > > >> nice -
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> because
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>> it
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> is
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> still possible, but it require some extra
> effort
> > > and
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> deliberate
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>> "ok
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> one really should be pushed to unblock
> everyone"
> > -
> > > as
> > > >> > long
> > > >> > > > > >> as
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> we
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>> all
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (especially those people that are active in the
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> #internal-airfow-ci-cd channel) know how to do
> it
> > > and
> > > >> > can
> > > >> > > > > >> fix
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>> things
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> quickly, this is actually a nice way to make it
> > > into
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> "exceptional"
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> workflow
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - which will push us more in making sure
> airflow
> > > >> main is
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> really
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> "green"
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> -
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> which ultimately is our goal to make it as
> green
> > as
> > > >> > > possible
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> all
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> time.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> What **might help with that** (and also keeping
> > the
> > > >> > > "enable
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> auto
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> merge"
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> might motivate it more to) is to:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * speed up the builds - we MUST prioritise now
> > ARC
> > > >> (K8S
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>> self-hosted
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> runners) to make our builds simply faster - I
> > > >> started a
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> discussion
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> and a
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> small group of people who can work together to
> > > >> complete
> > > >> > it
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> after
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hussein's
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> POC)
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * speed up the image release - with ARM runners
> > > >> (which
> > > >> > we
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> might be
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> able
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> do independently as recently I think we have
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> hypervisor-enabled
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>> ARM
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> images
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> available as public runners as github made it
> > > >> generally
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>> available).
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * speed up the doc builds for airflow-site - we
> > > >> (mainly
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> Pavan) are
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> close to
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> complete offloading of the historical release
> > docs
> > > >> to S3
> > > >> > > > > >> and I
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>> hope
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> it
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cut down a lot on doc publishing workflows.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> J,
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
> > > >> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> dev-help@airflow.apache.org
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS} Enabled experiment auto-merge feature

[Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>]

That's what I was saying. But welcoming discussion or feedback and then
terming it negative is a no-go, Jarek.



On Thu, 1 May 2025 at 15:07, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:

> I propose - let's not be defensive or offensive, but try to hear each other
> and improve things in the future :).
>
> On Thu, May 1, 2025 at 11:35 AM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >But I would personally love to see more "yes, but" than "no".
> >
> > Saying "would love to hear what you think" in the original message
> followed
> > by terming "negative" is not the way to collaborate.
> >
> > On Thu, 1 May 2025 at 15:01, Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "-1" was backed with rationale discussion and no one has said it was a
> > bad
> > > idea but you have said it is "negative".
> > >
> > > On Thu, 1 May 2025 at 14:59, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> > That said, I want to push back on the framing of some feedback as
> > >> “negative.” I really appreciate the folks who raised concerns, those
> > >> perspectives are vital to making the project stronger and more
> > inclusive.
> > >>
> > >> I think what I wanted to say is that I think we should all exercise
> > >> empathy. It's super easy to say "-1" but it's harder to say "It's a
> good
> > >> idea but ..". Psychological effect of the "-1" is that it "cuts the
> > wings"
> > >> of the person who has some idea and wants to follow it through. The
> > >> psychological effect of "cool idea, but" is that it - more often than
> > not
> > >> -
> > >> make the person more energised and inspired to look for a better
> > solution.
> > >>
> > >> And yes I know different people have different communication style,
> and
> > >> there are cultural differences and all that. But I would personally
> love
> > >> to
> > >> see more "yes, but" than "no".
> > >>
> > >> That's all I want to say..
> > >>
> > >> J/
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, May 1, 2025 at 11:23 AM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Thanks for the energy and initiative here.
> > >> >
> > >> > That said, I want to push back on the framing of some feedback as
> > >> > “negative.” I really appreciate the folks who raised concerns, those
> > >> > perspectives are vital to making the project stronger and more
> > >> inclusive.
> > >> >
> > >> > Let’s make sure we continue to welcome both enthusiasm and critique.
> > As
> > >> > the ASF
> > >> > Code of Conduct <https://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct
> >
> > >> > reminds us, thoughtful disagreement and diverse viewpoints are not
> > only
> > >> > expected but encouraged. Referring to concerns as “negative”, even
> > >> > unintentionally, can discourage people from speaking up, which we
> want
> > >> to
> > >> > avoid.
> > >> >
> > >> > We all want what’s best for Airflow, and part of that is making sure
> > >> > everyone feels safe to contribute, especially when something doesn’t
> > >> feel
> > >> > right.
> > >> >
> > >> > >Rather than focusing on the negative side, try to figure out a way
> to
> > >> make
> > >> > it work :)
> > >> >
> > >> > Back to the proposal from Jens and you -  Yes that (a comment
> allowing
> > >> to
> > >> > still merge/auto-merge the PR) alleviates my concern.
> > >> >
> > >> > Regards,
> > >> > Kaxil
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thu, 1 May 2025 at 12:54, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > I really like Jens's line of thought. Rather than focusing on the
> > >> > negative
> > >> > > side, try to figure out a way to make it work :). That's very
> > >> inspiring.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I think the original slack proposal of Jens was rather brittle,
> but
> > it
> > >> > made
> > >> > > me think that we can actually implement what we need rather
> quickly.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Following the `Dependabot` style @rebase - we could implement -
> very
> > >> > easily
> > >> > > - there are ready actions for that and other projects like apache
> > beam
> > >> > are
> > >> > > using similar workflows - the comment workflow, where maintainer
> who
> > >> > wants
> > >> > > to merge  (or auto-merge) such "failing" PR would just comment it
> > >> > > appropriately.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > What we really want is to make the "finalize" check succeed, so if
> > >> the PR
> > >> > > misses the "Finalize" step, a committer would just have to comment
> > it
> > >> > with
> > >> > > "@bypass-finalize` or `@finalize` or similar. And what it would
> do,
> > it
> > >> > > would use Github API to make the "Finalize" check succeed. There
> is
> > an
> > >> > API
> > >> > > for that.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > That has a few nice properties:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > * it uses the same GitHub UI we use, no need to have an "escape
> > hatch"
> > >> > and
> > >> > > separate remote
> > >> > > * it follows the pattern we already agreed to some time ago and
> > >> generally
> > >> > > follow -> we are supposed (as maintainers) to explain when we are
> > >> merging
> > >> > > such failing PR to show that this is a deliberate action - I
> usually
> > >> for
> > >> > > example always add "fixed already in main" or "Fixed already by
> > #..."
> > >> > > comment - you really need a comment in this case explaining that
> it
> > >> was
> > >> > not
> > >> > > accidental "merge".
> > >> > > * so if we have such workflow, it would "force" maintainer to
> make a
> > >> > > deliberate decision "yes I want to merge it despite failing" and
> > make
> > >> a
> > >> > > comment in the PR
> > >> > > * it would only set the "finalize" check to succeed, so still you
> > >> would
> > >> > not
> > >> > > be able to merge it without having an approval - this would only
> > >> bypass
> > >> > the
> > >> > > "finalize" check
> > >> > >
> > >> > > WDYT? Would that address all concerns with auto-merge ? Does it
> make
> > >> > sense
> > >> > > and is it "easy enough" to follow? Or are there any other
> concerns?
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 10:36 PM Pavankumar Gopidesu <
> > >> > > gopidesupavan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > I am also in line with Jens. The auto-merge feature works well
> in
> > >> > keeping
> > >> > > > the CI pipeline green before merging.
> > >> > > > However, there are situations where we need to merge changes
> > >> quickly.
> > >> > > > Instead of using an
> > >> > > > escape route (which I’m not a fan of, as it carries risks if
> > >> something
> > >> > > goes
> > >> > > > wrong—even though we can revert, it’s still a concern),
> > >> > > > we could explore ways to dynamically bypass certain checks when
> > >> > necessary
> > >> > > > or maybe some help from INFRA?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Pavan
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 9:22 PM Jens Scheffler
> > >> > > <j_scheffler@gmx.de.invalid
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > As there was a call for more opinions. Here I am :-D
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > I understand both positions. As I like AutoMerge very much I
> am
> > >> not
> > >> > > > > giving up :-D I'd like to keep it.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > I think there is still an option in between. Maybe need to
> > draft a
> > >> > bit
> > >> > > > > of thoughts but I think we could build something still around
> > the
> > >> > > > > limitations allowing automation.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Added a minor thought to the slack chat. But if community
> rules
> > >> > propose
> > >> > > > > to push to devchennel let me know.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Jens
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > On 30.04.25 11:04, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> > >> > > > > > Yeah, And I would encourage everyone to try it and provide
> > >> feedback
> > >> > > > while
> > >> > > > > > it is enabled.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > So far we identified a few things (and fix them) that made
> it
> > >> > > > borderline
> > >> > > > > > unusable (bug in workflow for UI-only changes, GitHub
> starting
> > >> to
> > >> > > > 429-us
> > >> > > > > > with too many requests, and the mysterious "hanging" of the
> > >> latest
> > >> > > > > > botocore/celery (?) "special tests" -> all that is already
> > >> > addressed
> > >> > > in
> > >> > > > > > main, and those issues should not happen (hopefully), so I'd
> > >> say we
> > >> > > can
> > >> > > > > now
> > >> > > > > > "truly" see how it might work.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > And one comment from my side - indeed, I find it nice
> > actually,
> > >> but
> > >> > > > it's
> > >> > > > > > definitely not a "deal breaker"- so if others find it too
> > >> > > disruptive, I
> > >> > > > > am
> > >> > > > > > definitely not going to die on this hill, I just thought it
> > does
> > >> > > > improve
> > >> > > > > > the workflow in the way that it allows for mostly "fire and
> > >> forget"
> > >> > > > when
> > >> > > > > > you approve the workflow, one thing that it definitely
> > improves
> > >> is
> > >> > > that
> > >> > > > > you
> > >> > > > > > do not have to remember about coming back to merge a request
> > >> when
> > >> > CI
> > >> > > > > > succeeds.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > J.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 10:58 AM Kaxil Naik <
> > >> kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >> Forgot to note an additional point in Summary: If we find
> > >> anything
> > >> > > > > blocking
> > >> > > > > >> us in that period, we will merge
> > >> > > > > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/50009 to disable
> > >> > auto-merge.
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 14:26, Kaxil Naik <
> > kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >>> Jarek & I discussed it on Slack in
> #internal-airflow-ci-cd.
> > >> > Summary
> > >> > > > > >> below:
> > >> > > > > >>> I have a PR to disable it:
> > >> > > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/50009.
> > >> > > > > >>> However, given that many countries will be on holiday on
> > May 1
> > >> > due
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > > > >>> Labour Day, and some teething issues were fixed yesterday,
> > we
> > >> > will
> > >> > > > let
> > >> > > > > it
> > >> > > > > >>> run for a few more days so other committers and
> contributors
> > >> can
> > >> > > get
> > >> > > > a
> > >> > > > > >>> chance to try it out and share their experience after the
> > >> > > > > >> experiment/trial
> > >> > > > > >>> is concluded.
> > >> > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > >>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 13:59, Kaxil Naik <
> > kaxilnaik@gmail.com
> > >> >
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > >>>> Whoops yeah.
> > >> > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>> Yep. Because it did not have all conversations resolved.
> > We
> > >> > also
> > >> > > > have
> > >> > > > > >>>> "require resolved conversation" as one of the branch
> > >> protection
> > >> > > > > >>>> conditions.
> > >> > > > > >>>> I resolved the conversation and it got merged
> > automatically.
> > >> > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>> Let's adapt it when ready though, I don't see any urgency
> > of
> > >> > > getting
> > >> > > > > >>>> enabling auto-merge or getting it contributed immediately
> > to
> > >> asf
> > >> > > > INFRA
> > >> > > > > >> when
> > >> > > > > >>>> it isn't critical. It is about priortization
> > >> > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>> I'd say - if that is really bothering us - let's shape
> the
> > >> > feature
> > >> > > > > >> rather
> > >> > > > > >>>>> than outright reject it.
> > >> > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 12:37, Jarek Potiuk <
> > jarek@potiuk.com
> > >> >
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 7:55 AM Kaxil Naik <
> > >> > kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > > >> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> To the point that the original PR is still not merged
> > even
> > >> > > after I
> > >> > > > > >> had
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> re-triggered the failed tests yesterday:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49727
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>> Yep. Because it did not have all conversations resolved.
> > We
> > >> > also
> > >> > > > have
> > >> > > > > >>>>> "require resolved conversation" as one of the branch
> > >> protection
> > >> > > > > >>>>> conditions.
> > >> > > > > >>>>> I resolved the conversation and it got merged
> > automatically.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 11:20, Kaxil Naik <
> > >> kaxilnaik@gmail.com
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > > >> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>> The gitbox escape hatch isn't it though -- if we are
> to
> > >> allow
> > >> > > > that
> > >> > > > > >>>>> why
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> not
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>> just allow people to merge it directly from github
> that
> > >> to go
> > >> > > via
> > >> > > > > >> an
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>> "escape hatch".
> > >> > > > > >>>>> Generally speaking GitHub has this option. Currently
> > >> "admins"
> > >> > > have
> > >> > > > a
> > >> > > > > >>>>> possibility of overriding branch protection (via UI).
> And
> > it
> > >> > > would
> > >> > > > be
> > >> > > > > >>>>> possible - if INFRA will allow it - to possibly add an
> > >> > .asf.yaml
> > >> > > > > >> feature
> > >> > > > > >>>>> to
> > >> > > > > >>>>> also allow branch protection override for all committers
> > or
> > >> a
> > >> > > > subset
> > >> > > > > of
> > >> > > > > >>>>> the
> > >> > > > > >>>>> committers (PMC Members ? ). This is more of a
> limitation
> > of
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > > >> current
> > >> > > > > >>>>> implementation of permissions than a missing feature. If
> > we
> > >> all
> > >> > > > feel
> > >> > > > > >> that
> > >> > > > > >>>>> the gitbox escape hatch is not enough, we can likely
> even
> > >> > > > contribute
> > >> > > > > >>>>> such a
> > >> > > > > >>>>> feature to .asf.yaml - if INFRA will be ok with the
> > option.
> > >> > It's
> > >> > > > very
> > >> > > > > >>>>> easy
> > >> > > > > >>>>> to contribute to - INFRA made it possible, we have a new
> > >> > > framework:
> > >> > > > > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/infrastructure-asfyaml - we
> can
> > >> even
> > >> > > > > >> implement
> > >> > > > > >>>>> "airflow-only" .asf.yaml feature, that will not be
> > initially
> > >> > > > > available
> > >> > > > > >> to
> > >> > > > > >>>>> other ASF projects and later we can promote it to be
> > >> available
> > >> > to
> > >> > > > > >>>>> everyone.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>> I'd say - if that is really bothering us - let's shape
> the
> > >> > > feature
> > >> > > > > >> rather
> > >> > > > > >>>>> than outright reject it.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>> I am -1 on this auto-merge feature
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>> Understood :). But let's give it a bit more time as well
> > and
> > >> > > maybe
> > >> > > > > >>>>> improve
> > >> > > > > >>>>> it (see above) - unless we really feel we are blocked
> now
> > -
> > >> > then
> > >> > > it
> > >> > > > > >>>>> should
> > >> > > > > >>>>> be as easy as merging an .asf.yaml change to disable it.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 11:18, Kaxil Naik <
> > >> > kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> That’s not a single person, it impacts the committers
> > and
> > >> > the
> > >> > > PR
> > >> > > > > >>>>> author
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> involved too. I don’t see how team productivity soars
> > >> here.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 02:39, Jarek Potiuk <
> > >> > jarek@potiuk.com>
> > >> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> But yes, I also miss the previous "merge because I
> > think
> > >> > it's
> > >> > > > > >> safe"
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> workflow.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> I badly miss it. Personally, It hurts my
> productivity.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> But I think the "require status check" to be green
> is
> > >> great
> > >> > > for
> > >> > > > > >>>>> "team
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> productivity". Usually when single person is
> impacted
> > >> more
> > >> > > than
> > >> > > > > >>>>> team in
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> general, it's worse for the person impacted, but
> team
> > >> > > > > >> productivity
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> soars.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> J.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 11:03 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > >> > > > jarek@potiuk.com>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Just to add comment:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> a) there was some instability of "celery/boto"
> > hanging
> > >> > tests
> > >> > > > > >>>>> today
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> that is
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> rather difficult to address - but we worked around
> it
> > >> by
> > >> > > just
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> removing
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> "special-tests" from pre-requisite of merging
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> b) GitHub today (like literally today!) started to
> be
> > >> > picky
> > >> > > on
> > >> > > > > >>>>> "too
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> many
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> requests" - I addressed it today for both helm
> chart
> > >> and
> > >> > our
> > >> > > > > >>>>> release
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> tests
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> (we are using bearer-token to authenticate and
> > increase
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > > >>>>> limit -
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> and we
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> added cache on downloading json schema that was
> > >> downloaded
> > >> > > > > >>>>> "per-test"
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> c) in cases like the one mentioned above with
> > >> intermittent
> > >> > > > > >>>>> failures -
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> simple "rerun failed jobs" (assuming it will
> succeed
> > >> after
> > >> > > > > >>>>> rerun) -
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> is
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> essentially equivalent of "merge" (unless it fails
> > >> again
> > >> > > which
> > >> > > > > >>>>> for me
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> is a
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> signal of "DO NOT MERGE")
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> d) we always have the "gitbox" escape hatch - that
> > >> allows
> > >> > > any
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> committer to
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> push the fix directly, bypassing the limits:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> This is a simple thing for committers:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> git add remote gitbox
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/airflow.git
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> git fetch gitbox
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> git commit --amend ("add #PR number")
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> git push gitbox BRANCH_NAME:main (you need to
> provide
> > >> your
> > >> > > > > >>>>> apache id
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> password)
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> This is a nice escape hatch that we can use as
> > >> > "exceptional
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> workflow" -
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> and it works - I did it quite a few times over the
> > last
> > >> > few
> > >> > > > > >>>>> days. Not
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> UI
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> controlled, but IMHO exceptional workflow should
> be -
> > >> > well
> > >> > > -
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> exceptional.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> J.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 8:52 PM Kaxil Naik <
> > >> > > > > >> kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Similar experience as Elad, I am in favor of
> > >> disabling it
> > >> > > > tbh.
> > >> > > > > >>>>> For
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> example,
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49727 has
> a
> > >> > failing
> > >> > > > > >>>>> test as
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> below
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> --
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> which is not an issue, and test passes locally so
> I
> > >> would
> > >> > > > want
> > >> > > > > >>>>> to
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> merge it
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> but I can't.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> FAILED
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> helm-tests/tests/helm_tests/airflow_aux/test_basic_helm_chart.py::TestBaseChartTest::test_priority_classes
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> - requests.exceptions.HTTPError: 429 Client Error:
> > Too
> > >> > Many
> > >> > > > > >>>>> Requests
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> for
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> url:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/yannh/kubernetes-json-schema/master/v1.29.1-standalone-strict/priorityclass-scheduling-v1.json
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 at 18:29, Jarek Potiuk <
> > >> > > jarek@potiuk.com
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 1:46 PM Elad Kalif <
> > >> > > > > >>>>> eladkal@apache.org>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for that Jarek!
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I find the lack of ability to merge PRs fast
> very
> > >> > > limiting
> > >> > > > > >>>>> but
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> it
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> might
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> just something to get used to.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed. I also see it, but also I got a few
> > manually
> > >> > > pushed
> > >> > > > > >>>>> "must
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> fix
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> quickly" to gitbox, and actually I find it really
> > >> nice -
> > >> > > > > >>>>> because
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> it
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> is
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> still possible, but it require some extra effort
> > and
> > >> > > > > >>>>> deliberate
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> "ok
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> one really should be pushed to unblock everyone"
> -
> > as
> > >> > long
> > >> > > > > >> as
> > >> > > > > >>>>> we
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> all
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (especially those people that are active in the
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> #internal-airfow-ci-cd channel) know how to do it
> > and
> > >> > can
> > >> > > > > >> fix
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> things
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> quickly, this is actually a nice way to make it
> > into
> > >> > > > > >>>>> "exceptional"
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> workflow
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - which will push us more in making sure airflow
> > >> main is
> > >> > > > > >>>>> really
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> "green"
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> -
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> which ultimately is our goal to make it as green
> as
> > >> > > possible
> > >> > > > > >>>>> all
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> the
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> time.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> What **might help with that** (and also keeping
> the
> > >> > > "enable
> > >> > > > > >>>>> auto
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> merge"
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> might motivate it more to) is to:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * speed up the builds - we MUST prioritise now
> ARC
> > >> (K8S
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> self-hosted
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> runners) to make our builds simply faster - I
> > >> started a
> > >> > > > > >>>>> discussion
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> and a
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> small group of people who can work together to
> > >> complete
> > >> > it
> > >> > > > > >>>>> after
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hussein's
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> POC)
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * speed up the image release - with ARM runners
> > >> (which
> > >> > we
> > >> > > > > >>>>> might be
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> able
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> do independently as recently I think we have
> > >> > > > > >>>>> hypervisor-enabled
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> ARM
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> images
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> available as public runners as github made it
> > >> generally
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> available).
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * speed up the doc builds for airflow-site - we
> > >> (mainly
> > >> > > > > >>>>> Pavan) are
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> close to
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> complete offloading of the historical release
> docs
> > >> to S3
> > >> > > > > >> and I
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> hope
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> it
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> will
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cut down a lot on doc publishing workflows.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> J,
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
> > >> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS} Enabled experiment auto-merge feature

[Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>]

I propose - let's not be defensive or offensive, but try to hear each other
and improve things in the future :).

On Thu, May 1, 2025 at 11:35 AM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >But I would personally love to see more "yes, but" than "no".
>
> Saying "would love to hear what you think" in the original message followed
> by terming "negative" is not the way to collaborate.
>
> On Thu, 1 May 2025 at 15:01, Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "-1" was backed with rationale discussion and no one has said it was a
> bad
> > idea but you have said it is "negative".
> >
> > On Thu, 1 May 2025 at 14:59, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > That said, I want to push back on the framing of some feedback as
> >> “negative.” I really appreciate the folks who raised concerns, those
> >> perspectives are vital to making the project stronger and more
> inclusive.
> >>
> >> I think what I wanted to say is that I think we should all exercise
> >> empathy. It's super easy to say "-1" but it's harder to say "It's a good
> >> idea but ..". Psychological effect of the "-1" is that it "cuts the
> wings"
> >> of the person who has some idea and wants to follow it through. The
> >> psychological effect of "cool idea, but" is that it - more often than
> not
> >> -
> >> make the person more energised and inspired to look for a better
> solution.
> >>
> >> And yes I know different people have different communication style, and
> >> there are cultural differences and all that. But I would personally love
> >> to
> >> see more "yes, but" than "no".
> >>
> >> That's all I want to say..
> >>
> >> J/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 1, 2025 at 11:23 AM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Thanks for the energy and initiative here.
> >> >
> >> > That said, I want to push back on the framing of some feedback as
> >> > “negative.” I really appreciate the folks who raised concerns, those
> >> > perspectives are vital to making the project stronger and more
> >> inclusive.
> >> >
> >> > Let’s make sure we continue to welcome both enthusiasm and critique.
> As
> >> > the ASF
> >> > Code of Conduct <https://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct>
> >> > reminds us, thoughtful disagreement and diverse viewpoints are not
> only
> >> > expected but encouraged. Referring to concerns as “negative”, even
> >> > unintentionally, can discourage people from speaking up, which we want
> >> to
> >> > avoid.
> >> >
> >> > We all want what’s best for Airflow, and part of that is making sure
> >> > everyone feels safe to contribute, especially when something doesn’t
> >> feel
> >> > right.
> >> >
> >> > >Rather than focusing on the negative side, try to figure out a way to
> >> make
> >> > it work :)
> >> >
> >> > Back to the proposal from Jens and you -  Yes that (a comment allowing
> >> to
> >> > still merge/auto-merge the PR) alleviates my concern.
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Kaxil
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, 1 May 2025 at 12:54, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I really like Jens's line of thought. Rather than focusing on the
> >> > negative
> >> > > side, try to figure out a way to make it work :). That's very
> >> inspiring.
> >> > >
> >> > > I think the original slack proposal of Jens was rather brittle, but
> it
> >> > made
> >> > > me think that we can actually implement what we need rather quickly.
> >> > >
> >> > > Following the `Dependabot` style @rebase - we could implement - very
> >> > easily
> >> > > - there are ready actions for that and other projects like apache
> beam
> >> > are
> >> > > using similar workflows - the comment workflow, where maintainer who
> >> > wants
> >> > > to merge  (or auto-merge) such "failing" PR would just comment it
> >> > > appropriately.
> >> > >
> >> > > What we really want is to make the "finalize" check succeed, so if
> >> the PR
> >> > > misses the "Finalize" step, a committer would just have to comment
> it
> >> > with
> >> > > "@bypass-finalize` or `@finalize` or similar. And what it would do,
> it
> >> > > would use Github API to make the "Finalize" check succeed. There is
> an
> >> > API
> >> > > for that.
> >> > >
> >> > > That has a few nice properties:
> >> > >
> >> > > * it uses the same GitHub UI we use, no need to have an "escape
> hatch"
> >> > and
> >> > > separate remote
> >> > > * it follows the pattern we already agreed to some time ago and
> >> generally
> >> > > follow -> we are supposed (as maintainers) to explain when we are
> >> merging
> >> > > such failing PR to show that this is a deliberate action - I usually
> >> for
> >> > > example always add "fixed already in main" or "Fixed already by
> #..."
> >> > > comment - you really need a comment in this case explaining that it
> >> was
> >> > not
> >> > > accidental "merge".
> >> > > * so if we have such workflow, it would "force" maintainer to make a
> >> > > deliberate decision "yes I want to merge it despite failing" and
> make
> >> a
> >> > > comment in the PR
> >> > > * it would only set the "finalize" check to succeed, so still you
> >> would
> >> > not
> >> > > be able to merge it without having an approval - this would only
> >> bypass
> >> > the
> >> > > "finalize" check
> >> > >
> >> > > WDYT? Would that address all concerns with auto-merge ? Does it make
> >> > sense
> >> > > and is it "easy enough" to follow? Or are there any other concerns?
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 10:36 PM Pavankumar Gopidesu <
> >> > > gopidesupavan@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > I am also in line with Jens. The auto-merge feature works well in
> >> > keeping
> >> > > > the CI pipeline green before merging.
> >> > > > However, there are situations where we need to merge changes
> >> quickly.
> >> > > > Instead of using an
> >> > > > escape route (which I’m not a fan of, as it carries risks if
> >> something
> >> > > goes
> >> > > > wrong—even though we can revert, it’s still a concern),
> >> > > > we could explore ways to dynamically bypass certain checks when
> >> > necessary
> >> > > > or maybe some help from INFRA?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Pavan
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 9:22 PM Jens Scheffler
> >> > > <j_scheffler@gmx.de.invalid
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > As there was a call for more opinions. Here I am :-D
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I understand both positions. As I like AutoMerge very much I am
> >> not
> >> > > > > giving up :-D I'd like to keep it.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I think there is still an option in between. Maybe need to
> draft a
> >> > bit
> >> > > > > of thoughts but I think we could build something still around
> the
> >> > > > > limitations allowing automation.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Added a minor thought to the slack chat. But if community rules
> >> > propose
> >> > > > > to push to devchennel let me know.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Jens
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On 30.04.25 11:04, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> >> > > > > > Yeah, And I would encourage everyone to try it and provide
> >> feedback
> >> > > > while
> >> > > > > > it is enabled.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > So far we identified a few things (and fix them) that made it
> >> > > > borderline
> >> > > > > > unusable (bug in workflow for UI-only changes, GitHub starting
> >> to
> >> > > > 429-us
> >> > > > > > with too many requests, and the mysterious "hanging" of the
> >> latest
> >> > > > > > botocore/celery (?) "special tests" -> all that is already
> >> > addressed
> >> > > in
> >> > > > > > main, and those issues should not happen (hopefully), so I'd
> >> say we
> >> > > can
> >> > > > > now
> >> > > > > > "truly" see how it might work.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > And one comment from my side - indeed, I find it nice
> actually,
> >> but
> >> > > > it's
> >> > > > > > definitely not a "deal breaker"- so if others find it too
> >> > > disruptive, I
> >> > > > > am
> >> > > > > > definitely not going to die on this hill, I just thought it
> does
> >> > > > improve
> >> > > > > > the workflow in the way that it allows for mostly "fire and
> >> forget"
> >> > > > when
> >> > > > > > you approve the workflow, one thing that it definitely
> improves
> >> is
> >> > > that
> >> > > > > you
> >> > > > > > do not have to remember about coming back to merge a request
> >> when
> >> > CI
> >> > > > > > succeeds.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > J.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 10:58 AM Kaxil Naik <
> >> kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >> Forgot to note an additional point in Summary: If we find
> >> anything
> >> > > > > blocking
> >> > > > > >> us in that period, we will merge
> >> > > > > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/50009 to disable
> >> > auto-merge.
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 14:26, Kaxil Naik <
> kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >>> Jarek & I discussed it on Slack in #internal-airflow-ci-cd.
> >> > Summary
> >> > > > > >> below:
> >> > > > > >>> I have a PR to disable it:
> >> > > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/50009.
> >> > > > > >>> However, given that many countries will be on holiday on
> May 1
> >> > due
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > >>> Labour Day, and some teething issues were fixed yesterday,
> we
> >> > will
> >> > > > let
> >> > > > > it
> >> > > > > >>> run for a few more days so other committers and contributors
> >> can
> >> > > get
> >> > > > a
> >> > > > > >>> chance to try it out and share their experience after the
> >> > > > > >> experiment/trial
> >> > > > > >>> is concluded.
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 13:59, Kaxil Naik <
> kaxilnaik@gmail.com
> >> >
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>>> Whoops yeah.
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>> Yep. Because it did not have all conversations resolved.
> We
> >> > also
> >> > > > have
> >> > > > > >>>> "require resolved conversation" as one of the branch
> >> protection
> >> > > > > >>>> conditions.
> >> > > > > >>>> I resolved the conversation and it got merged
> automatically.
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>> Let's adapt it when ready though, I don't see any urgency
> of
> >> > > getting
> >> > > > > >>>> enabling auto-merge or getting it contributed immediately
> to
> >> asf
> >> > > > INFRA
> >> > > > > >> when
> >> > > > > >>>> it isn't critical. It is about priortization
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>> I'd say - if that is really bothering us - let's shape the
> >> > feature
> >> > > > > >> rather
> >> > > > > >>>>> than outright reject it.
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 12:37, Jarek Potiuk <
> jarek@potiuk.com
> >> >
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 7:55 AM Kaxil Naik <
> >> > kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > >> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>> To the point that the original PR is still not merged
> even
> >> > > after I
> >> > > > > >> had
> >> > > > > >>>>>> re-triggered the failed tests yesterday:
> >> > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49727
> >> > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>> Yep. Because it did not have all conversations resolved.
> We
> >> > also
> >> > > > have
> >> > > > > >>>>> "require resolved conversation" as one of the branch
> >> protection
> >> > > > > >>>>> conditions.
> >> > > > > >>>>> I resolved the conversation and it got merged
> automatically.
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 11:20, Kaxil Naik <
> >> kaxilnaik@gmail.com
> >> > >
> >> > > > > >> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> The gitbox escape hatch isn't it though -- if we are to
> >> allow
> >> > > > that
> >> > > > > >>>>> why
> >> > > > > >>>>>> not
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> just allow people to merge it directly from github that
> >> to go
> >> > > via
> >> > > > > >> an
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> "escape hatch".
> >> > > > > >>>>> Generally speaking GitHub has this option. Currently
> >> "admins"
> >> > > have
> >> > > > a
> >> > > > > >>>>> possibility of overriding branch protection (via UI). And
> it
> >> > > would
> >> > > > be
> >> > > > > >>>>> possible - if INFRA will allow it - to possibly add an
> >> > .asf.yaml
> >> > > > > >> feature
> >> > > > > >>>>> to
> >> > > > > >>>>> also allow branch protection override for all committers
> or
> >> a
> >> > > > subset
> >> > > > > of
> >> > > > > >>>>> the
> >> > > > > >>>>> committers (PMC Members ? ). This is more of a limitation
> of
> >> > the
> >> > > > > >> current
> >> > > > > >>>>> implementation of permissions than a missing feature. If
> we
> >> all
> >> > > > feel
> >> > > > > >> that
> >> > > > > >>>>> the gitbox escape hatch is not enough, we can likely even
> >> > > > contribute
> >> > > > > >>>>> such a
> >> > > > > >>>>> feature to .asf.yaml - if INFRA will be ok with the
> option.
> >> > It's
> >> > > > very
> >> > > > > >>>>> easy
> >> > > > > >>>>> to contribute to - INFRA made it possible, we have a new
> >> > > framework:
> >> > > > > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/infrastructure-asfyaml - we can
> >> even
> >> > > > > >> implement
> >> > > > > >>>>> "airflow-only" .asf.yaml feature, that will not be
> initially
> >> > > > > available
> >> > > > > >> to
> >> > > > > >>>>> other ASF projects and later we can promote it to be
> >> available
> >> > to
> >> > > > > >>>>> everyone.
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>> I'd say - if that is really bothering us - let's shape the
> >> > > feature
> >> > > > > >> rather
> >> > > > > >>>>> than outright reject it.
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> I am -1 on this auto-merge feature
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>> Understood :). But let's give it a bit more time as well
> and
> >> > > maybe
> >> > > > > >>>>> improve
> >> > > > > >>>>> it (see above) - unless we really feel we are blocked now
> -
> >> > then
> >> > > it
> >> > > > > >>>>> should
> >> > > > > >>>>> be as easy as merging an .asf.yaml change to disable it.
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 11:18, Kaxil Naik <
> >> > kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> That’s not a single person, it impacts the committers
> and
> >> > the
> >> > > PR
> >> > > > > >>>>> author
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> involved too. I don’t see how team productivity soars
> >> here.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 02:39, Jarek Potiuk <
> >> > jarek@potiuk.com>
> >> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> But yes, I also miss the previous "merge because I
> think
> >> > it's
> >> > > > > >> safe"
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> workflow.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> I badly miss it. Personally, It hurts my productivity.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> But I think the "require status check" to be green is
> >> great
> >> > > for
> >> > > > > >>>>> "team
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> productivity". Usually when single person is impacted
> >> more
> >> > > than
> >> > > > > >>>>> team in
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> general, it's worse for the person impacted, but team
> >> > > > > >> productivity
> >> > > > > >>>>>> soars.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> J.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 11:03 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> >> > > > jarek@potiuk.com>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Just to add comment:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> a) there was some instability of "celery/boto"
> hanging
> >> > tests
> >> > > > > >>>>> today
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> that is
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> rather difficult to address - but we worked around it
> >> by
> >> > > just
> >> > > > > >>>>>> removing
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> "special-tests" from pre-requisite of merging
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> b) GitHub today (like literally today!) started to be
> >> > picky
> >> > > on
> >> > > > > >>>>> "too
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> many
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> requests" - I addressed it today for both helm chart
> >> and
> >> > our
> >> > > > > >>>>> release
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> tests
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> (we are using bearer-token to authenticate and
> increase
> >> > the
> >> > > > > >>>>> limit -
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> and we
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> added cache on downloading json schema that was
> >> downloaded
> >> > > > > >>>>> "per-test"
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> c) in cases like the one mentioned above with
> >> intermittent
> >> > > > > >>>>> failures -
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> simple "rerun failed jobs" (assuming it will succeed
> >> after
> >> > > > > >>>>> rerun) -
> >> > > > > >>>>>> is
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> essentially equivalent of "merge" (unless it fails
> >> again
> >> > > which
> >> > > > > >>>>> for me
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> is a
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> signal of "DO NOT MERGE")
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> d) we always have the "gitbox" escape hatch - that
> >> allows
> >> > > any
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> committer to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> push the fix directly, bypassing the limits:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> This is a simple thing for committers:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> git add remote gitbox
> >> > > > > >>>>>> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/airflow.git
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> git fetch gitbox
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> git commit --amend ("add #PR number")
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> git push gitbox BRANCH_NAME:main (you need to provide
> >> your
> >> > > > > >>>>> apache id
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> password)
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> This is a nice escape hatch that we can use as
> >> > "exceptional
> >> > > > > >>>>>> workflow" -
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> and it works - I did it quite a few times over the
> last
> >> > few
> >> > > > > >>>>> days. Not
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> UI
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> controlled, but IMHO exceptional workflow should be -
> >> > well
> >> > > -
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> exceptional.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> J.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 8:52 PM Kaxil Naik <
> >> > > > > >> kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Similar experience as Elad, I am in favor of
> >> disabling it
> >> > > > tbh.
> >> > > > > >>>>> For
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> example,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49727 has a
> >> > failing
> >> > > > > >>>>> test as
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> below
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> which is not an issue, and test passes locally so I
> >> would
> >> > > > want
> >> > > > > >>>>> to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> merge it
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> but I can't.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> FAILED
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> helm-tests/tests/helm_tests/airflow_aux/test_basic_helm_chart.py::TestBaseChartTest::test_priority_classes
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> - requests.exceptions.HTTPError: 429 Client Error:
> Too
> >> > Many
> >> > > > > >>>>> Requests
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> for
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> url:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/yannh/kubernetes-json-schema/master/v1.29.1-standalone-strict/priorityclass-scheduling-v1.json
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 at 18:29, Jarek Potiuk <
> >> > > jarek@potiuk.com
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 1:46 PM Elad Kalif <
> >> > > > > >>>>> eladkal@apache.org>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for that Jarek!
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I find the lack of ability to merge PRs fast very
> >> > > limiting
> >> > > > > >>>>> but
> >> > > > > >>>>>> it
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> might
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> just something to get used to.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed. I also see it, but also I got a few
> manually
> >> > > pushed
> >> > > > > >>>>> "must
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> fix
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> quickly" to gitbox, and actually I find it really
> >> nice -
> >> > > > > >>>>> because
> >> > > > > >>>>>> it
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> is
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> still possible, but it require some extra effort
> and
> >> > > > > >>>>> deliberate
> >> > > > > >>>>>> "ok
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> one really should be pushed to unblock everyone" -
> as
> >> > long
> >> > > > > >> as
> >> > > > > >>>>> we
> >> > > > > >>>>>> all
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (especially those people that are active in the
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> #internal-airfow-ci-cd channel) know how to do it
> and
> >> > can
> >> > > > > >> fix
> >> > > > > >>>>>> things
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> quickly, this is actually a nice way to make it
> into
> >> > > > > >>>>> "exceptional"
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> workflow
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - which will push us more in making sure airflow
> >> main is
> >> > > > > >>>>> really
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> "green"
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> -
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> which ultimately is our goal to make it as green as
> >> > > possible
> >> > > > > >>>>> all
> >> > > > > >>>>>> the
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> time.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> What **might help with that** (and also keeping the
> >> > > "enable
> >> > > > > >>>>> auto
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> merge"
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> might motivate it more to) is to:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * speed up the builds - we MUST prioritise now ARC
> >> (K8S
> >> > > > > >>>>>> self-hosted
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> runners) to make our builds simply faster - I
> >> started a
> >> > > > > >>>>> discussion
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> and a
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> small group of people who can work together to
> >> complete
> >> > it
> >> > > > > >>>>> after
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hussein's
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> POC)
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * speed up the image release - with ARM runners
> >> (which
> >> > we
> >> > > > > >>>>> might be
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> able
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> do independently as recently I think we have
> >> > > > > >>>>> hypervisor-enabled
> >> > > > > >>>>>> ARM
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> images
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> available as public runners as github made it
> >> generally
> >> > > > > >>>>>> available).
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * speed up the doc builds for airflow-site - we
> >> (mainly
> >> > > > > >>>>> Pavan) are
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> close to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> complete offloading of the historical release docs
> >> to S3
> >> > > > > >> and I
> >> > > > > >>>>>> hope
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> it
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> will
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cut down a lot on doc publishing workflows.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> J,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
> >> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS} Enabled experiment auto-merge feature

[Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>]

>But I would personally love to see more "yes, but" than "no".

Saying "would love to hear what you think" in the original message followed
by terming "negative" is not the way to collaborate.

On Thu, 1 May 2025 at 15:01, Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "-1" was backed with rationale discussion and no one has said it was a bad
> idea but you have said it is "negative".
>
> On Thu, 1 May 2025 at 14:59, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
>
>> > That said, I want to push back on the framing of some feedback as
>> “negative.” I really appreciate the folks who raised concerns, those
>> perspectives are vital to making the project stronger and more inclusive.
>>
>> I think what I wanted to say is that I think we should all exercise
>> empathy. It's super easy to say "-1" but it's harder to say "It's a good
>> idea but ..". Psychological effect of the "-1" is that it "cuts the wings"
>> of the person who has some idea and wants to follow it through. The
>> psychological effect of "cool idea, but" is that it - more often than not
>> -
>> make the person more energised and inspired to look for a better solution.
>>
>> And yes I know different people have different communication style, and
>> there are cultural differences and all that. But I would personally love
>> to
>> see more "yes, but" than "no".
>>
>> That's all I want to say..
>>
>> J/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 1, 2025 at 11:23 AM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks for the energy and initiative here.
>> >
>> > That said, I want to push back on the framing of some feedback as
>> > “negative.” I really appreciate the folks who raised concerns, those
>> > perspectives are vital to making the project stronger and more
>> inclusive.
>> >
>> > Let’s make sure we continue to welcome both enthusiasm and critique. As
>> > the ASF
>> > Code of Conduct <https://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct>
>> > reminds us, thoughtful disagreement and diverse viewpoints are not only
>> > expected but encouraged. Referring to concerns as “negative”, even
>> > unintentionally, can discourage people from speaking up, which we want
>> to
>> > avoid.
>> >
>> > We all want what’s best for Airflow, and part of that is making sure
>> > everyone feels safe to contribute, especially when something doesn’t
>> feel
>> > right.
>> >
>> > >Rather than focusing on the negative side, try to figure out a way to
>> make
>> > it work :)
>> >
>> > Back to the proposal from Jens and you -  Yes that (a comment allowing
>> to
>> > still merge/auto-merge the PR) alleviates my concern.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Kaxil
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, 1 May 2025 at 12:54, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I really like Jens's line of thought. Rather than focusing on the
>> > negative
>> > > side, try to figure out a way to make it work :). That's very
>> inspiring.
>> > >
>> > > I think the original slack proposal of Jens was rather brittle, but it
>> > made
>> > > me think that we can actually implement what we need rather quickly.
>> > >
>> > > Following the `Dependabot` style @rebase - we could implement - very
>> > easily
>> > > - there are ready actions for that and other projects like apache beam
>> > are
>> > > using similar workflows - the comment workflow, where maintainer who
>> > wants
>> > > to merge  (or auto-merge) such "failing" PR would just comment it
>> > > appropriately.
>> > >
>> > > What we really want is to make the "finalize" check succeed, so if
>> the PR
>> > > misses the "Finalize" step, a committer would just have to comment it
>> > with
>> > > "@bypass-finalize` or `@finalize` or similar. And what it would do, it
>> > > would use Github API to make the "Finalize" check succeed. There is an
>> > API
>> > > for that.
>> > >
>> > > That has a few nice properties:
>> > >
>> > > * it uses the same GitHub UI we use, no need to have an "escape hatch"
>> > and
>> > > separate remote
>> > > * it follows the pattern we already agreed to some time ago and
>> generally
>> > > follow -> we are supposed (as maintainers) to explain when we are
>> merging
>> > > such failing PR to show that this is a deliberate action - I usually
>> for
>> > > example always add "fixed already in main" or "Fixed already by #..."
>> > > comment - you really need a comment in this case explaining that it
>> was
>> > not
>> > > accidental "merge".
>> > > * so if we have such workflow, it would "force" maintainer to make a
>> > > deliberate decision "yes I want to merge it despite failing" and make
>> a
>> > > comment in the PR
>> > > * it would only set the "finalize" check to succeed, so still you
>> would
>> > not
>> > > be able to merge it without having an approval - this would only
>> bypass
>> > the
>> > > "finalize" check
>> > >
>> > > WDYT? Would that address all concerns with auto-merge ? Does it make
>> > sense
>> > > and is it "easy enough" to follow? Or are there any other concerns?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 10:36 PM Pavankumar Gopidesu <
>> > > gopidesupavan@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I am also in line with Jens. The auto-merge feature works well in
>> > keeping
>> > > > the CI pipeline green before merging.
>> > > > However, there are situations where we need to merge changes
>> quickly.
>> > > > Instead of using an
>> > > > escape route (which I’m not a fan of, as it carries risks if
>> something
>> > > goes
>> > > > wrong—even though we can revert, it’s still a concern),
>> > > > we could explore ways to dynamically bypass certain checks when
>> > necessary
>> > > > or maybe some help from INFRA?
>> > > >
>> > > > Pavan
>> > > >
>> > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 9:22 PM Jens Scheffler
>> > > <j_scheffler@gmx.de.invalid
>> > > > >
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > As there was a call for more opinions. Here I am :-D
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I understand both positions. As I like AutoMerge very much I am
>> not
>> > > > > giving up :-D I'd like to keep it.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I think there is still an option in between. Maybe need to draft a
>> > bit
>> > > > > of thoughts but I think we could build something still around the
>> > > > > limitations allowing automation.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Added a minor thought to the slack chat. But if community rules
>> > propose
>> > > > > to push to devchennel let me know.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Jens
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On 30.04.25 11:04, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
>> > > > > > Yeah, And I would encourage everyone to try it and provide
>> feedback
>> > > > while
>> > > > > > it is enabled.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > So far we identified a few things (and fix them) that made it
>> > > > borderline
>> > > > > > unusable (bug in workflow for UI-only changes, GitHub starting
>> to
>> > > > 429-us
>> > > > > > with too many requests, and the mysterious "hanging" of the
>> latest
>> > > > > > botocore/celery (?) "special tests" -> all that is already
>> > addressed
>> > > in
>> > > > > > main, and those issues should not happen (hopefully), so I'd
>> say we
>> > > can
>> > > > > now
>> > > > > > "truly" see how it might work.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > And one comment from my side - indeed, I find it nice actually,
>> but
>> > > > it's
>> > > > > > definitely not a "deal breaker"- so if others find it too
>> > > disruptive, I
>> > > > > am
>> > > > > > definitely not going to die on this hill, I just thought it does
>> > > > improve
>> > > > > > the workflow in the way that it allows for mostly "fire and
>> forget"
>> > > > when
>> > > > > > you approve the workflow, one thing that it definitely improves
>> is
>> > > that
>> > > > > you
>> > > > > > do not have to remember about coming back to merge a request
>> when
>> > CI
>> > > > > > succeeds.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > J.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 10:58 AM Kaxil Naik <
>> kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >> Forgot to note an additional point in Summary: If we find
>> anything
>> > > > > blocking
>> > > > > >> us in that period, we will merge
>> > > > > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/50009 to disable
>> > auto-merge.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 14:26, Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>> Jarek & I discussed it on Slack in #internal-airflow-ci-cd.
>> > Summary
>> > > > > >> below:
>> > > > > >>> I have a PR to disable it:
>> > > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/50009.
>> > > > > >>> However, given that many countries will be on holiday on May 1
>> > due
>> > > to
>> > > > > >>> Labour Day, and some teething issues were fixed yesterday, we
>> > will
>> > > > let
>> > > > > it
>> > > > > >>> run for a few more days so other committers and contributors
>> can
>> > > get
>> > > > a
>> > > > > >>> chance to try it out and share their experience after the
>> > > > > >> experiment/trial
>> > > > > >>> is concluded.
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 13:59, Kaxil Naik <kaxilnaik@gmail.com
>> >
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>>> Whoops yeah.
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> Yep. Because it did not have all conversations resolved. We
>> > also
>> > > > have
>> > > > > >>>> "require resolved conversation" as one of the branch
>> protection
>> > > > > >>>> conditions.
>> > > > > >>>> I resolved the conversation and it got merged automatically.
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> Let's adapt it when ready though, I don't see any urgency of
>> > > getting
>> > > > > >>>> enabling auto-merge or getting it contributed immediately to
>> asf
>> > > > INFRA
>> > > > > >> when
>> > > > > >>>> it isn't critical. It is about priortization
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> I'd say - if that is really bothering us - let's shape the
>> > feature
>> > > > > >> rather
>> > > > > >>>>> than outright reject it.
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 12:37, Jarek Potiuk <jarek@potiuk.com
>> >
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 7:55 AM Kaxil Naik <
>> > kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
>> > > > > >> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>> To the point that the original PR is still not merged even
>> > > after I
>> > > > > >> had
>> > > > > >>>>>> re-triggered the failed tests yesterday:
>> > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49727
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> Yep. Because it did not have all conversations resolved. We
>> > also
>> > > > have
>> > > > > >>>>> "require resolved conversation" as one of the branch
>> protection
>> > > > > >>>>> conditions.
>> > > > > >>>>> I resolved the conversation and it got merged automatically.
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 11:20, Kaxil Naik <
>> kaxilnaik@gmail.com
>> > >
>> > > > > >> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>> The gitbox escape hatch isn't it though -- if we are to
>> allow
>> > > > that
>> > > > > >>>>> why
>> > > > > >>>>>> not
>> > > > > >>>>>>> just allow people to merge it directly from github that
>> to go
>> > > via
>> > > > > >> an
>> > > > > >>>>>>> "escape hatch".
>> > > > > >>>>> Generally speaking GitHub has this option. Currently
>> "admins"
>> > > have
>> > > > a
>> > > > > >>>>> possibility of overriding branch protection (via UI). And it
>> > > would
>> > > > be
>> > > > > >>>>> possible - if INFRA will allow it - to possibly add an
>> > .asf.yaml
>> > > > > >> feature
>> > > > > >>>>> to
>> > > > > >>>>> also allow branch protection override for all committers or
>> a
>> > > > subset
>> > > > > of
>> > > > > >>>>> the
>> > > > > >>>>> committers (PMC Members ? ). This is more of a limitation of
>> > the
>> > > > > >> current
>> > > > > >>>>> implementation of permissions than a missing feature. If we
>> all
>> > > > feel
>> > > > > >> that
>> > > > > >>>>> the gitbox escape hatch is not enough, we can likely even
>> > > > contribute
>> > > > > >>>>> such a
>> > > > > >>>>> feature to .asf.yaml - if INFRA will be ok with the option.
>> > It's
>> > > > very
>> > > > > >>>>> easy
>> > > > > >>>>> to contribute to - INFRA made it possible, we have a new
>> > > framework:
>> > > > > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/infrastructure-asfyaml - we can
>> even
>> > > > > >> implement
>> > > > > >>>>> "airflow-only" .asf.yaml feature, that will not be initially
>> > > > > available
>> > > > > >> to
>> > > > > >>>>> other ASF projects and later we can promote it to be
>> available
>> > to
>> > > > > >>>>> everyone.
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> I'd say - if that is really bothering us - let's shape the
>> > > feature
>> > > > > >> rather
>> > > > > >>>>> than outright reject it.
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>> I am -1 on this auto-merge feature
>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> Understood :). But let's give it a bit more time as well and
>> > > maybe
>> > > > > >>>>> improve
>> > > > > >>>>> it (see above) - unless we really feel we are blocked now -
>> > then
>> > > it
>> > > > > >>>>> should
>> > > > > >>>>> be as easy as merging an .asf.yaml change to disable it.
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 11:18, Kaxil Naik <
>> > kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
>> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> That’s not a single person, it impacts the committers and
>> > the
>> > > PR
>> > > > > >>>>> author
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> involved too. I don’t see how team productivity soars
>> here.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 02:39, Jarek Potiuk <
>> > jarek@potiuk.com>
>> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> But yes, I also miss the previous "merge because I think
>> > it's
>> > > > > >> safe"
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> workflow.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> I badly miss it. Personally, It hurts my productivity.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> But I think the "require status check" to be green is
>> great
>> > > for
>> > > > > >>>>> "team
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> productivity". Usually when single person is impacted
>> more
>> > > than
>> > > > > >>>>> team in
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> general, it's worse for the person impacted, but team
>> > > > > >> productivity
>> > > > > >>>>>> soars.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> J.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 11:03 PM Jarek Potiuk <
>> > > > jarek@potiuk.com>
>> > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Just to add comment:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> a) there was some instability of "celery/boto" hanging
>> > tests
>> > > > > >>>>> today
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> that is
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> rather difficult to address - but we worked around it
>> by
>> > > just
>> > > > > >>>>>> removing
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> "special-tests" from pre-requisite of merging
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> b) GitHub today (like literally today!) started to be
>> > picky
>> > > on
>> > > > > >>>>> "too
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> many
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> requests" - I addressed it today for both helm chart
>> and
>> > our
>> > > > > >>>>> release
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> tests
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> (we are using bearer-token to authenticate and increase
>> > the
>> > > > > >>>>> limit -
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> and we
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> added cache on downloading json schema that was
>> downloaded
>> > > > > >>>>> "per-test"
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> c) in cases like the one mentioned above with
>> intermittent
>> > > > > >>>>> failures -
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> simple "rerun failed jobs" (assuming it will succeed
>> after
>> > > > > >>>>> rerun) -
>> > > > > >>>>>> is
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> essentially equivalent of "merge" (unless it fails
>> again
>> > > which
>> > > > > >>>>> for me
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> is a
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> signal of "DO NOT MERGE")
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> d) we always have the "gitbox" escape hatch - that
>> allows
>> > > any
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> committer to
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> push the fix directly, bypassing the limits:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> This is a simple thing for committers:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> git add remote gitbox
>> > > > > >>>>>> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/airflow.git
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> git fetch gitbox
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> git commit --amend ("add #PR number")
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> git push gitbox BRANCH_NAME:main (you need to provide
>> your
>> > > > > >>>>> apache id
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> password)
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> This is a nice escape hatch that we can use as
>> > "exceptional
>> > > > > >>>>>> workflow" -
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> and it works - I did it quite a few times over the last
>> > few
>> > > > > >>>>> days. Not
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> UI
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> controlled, but IMHO exceptional workflow should be -
>> > well
>> > > -
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> exceptional.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> J.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 8:52 PM Kaxil Naik <
>> > > > > >> kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Similar experience as Elad, I am in favor of
>> disabling it
>> > > > tbh.
>> > > > > >>>>> For
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> example,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49727 has a
>> > failing
>> > > > > >>>>> test as
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> below
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> --
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> which is not an issue, and test passes locally so I
>> would
>> > > > want
>> > > > > >>>>> to
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> merge it
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> but I can't.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> FAILED
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> helm-tests/tests/helm_tests/airflow_aux/test_basic_helm_chart.py::TestBaseChartTest::test_priority_classes
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> - requests.exceptions.HTTPError: 429 Client Error: Too
>> > Many
>> > > > > >>>>> Requests
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> for
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> url:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/yannh/kubernetes-json-schema/master/v1.29.1-standalone-strict/priorityclass-scheduling-v1.json
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 at 18:29, Jarek Potiuk <
>> > > jarek@potiuk.com
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 1:46 PM Elad Kalif <
>> > > > > >>>>> eladkal@apache.org>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for that Jarek!
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I find the lack of ability to merge PRs fast very
>> > > limiting
>> > > > > >>>>> but
>> > > > > >>>>>> it
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> might
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> just something to get used to.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed. I also see it, but also I got a few manually
>> > > pushed
>> > > > > >>>>> "must
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> fix
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> quickly" to gitbox, and actually I find it really
>> nice -
>> > > > > >>>>> because
>> > > > > >>>>>> it
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> is
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> still possible, but it require some extra effort and
>> > > > > >>>>> deliberate
>> > > > > >>>>>> "ok
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> one really should be pushed to unblock everyone" - as
>> > long
>> > > > > >> as
>> > > > > >>>>> we
>> > > > > >>>>>> all
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (especially those people that are active in the
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> #internal-airfow-ci-cd channel) know how to do it and
>> > can
>> > > > > >> fix
>> > > > > >>>>>> things
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> quickly, this is actually a nice way to make it into
>> > > > > >>>>> "exceptional"
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> workflow
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - which will push us more in making sure airflow
>> main is
>> > > > > >>>>> really
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> "green"
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> -
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> which ultimately is our goal to make it as green as
>> > > possible
>> > > > > >>>>> all
>> > > > > >>>>>> the
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> time.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> What **might help with that** (and also keeping the
>> > > "enable
>> > > > > >>>>> auto
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> merge"
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> might motivate it more to) is to:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * speed up the builds - we MUST prioritise now ARC
>> (K8S
>> > > > > >>>>>> self-hosted
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> runners) to make our builds simply faster - I
>> started a
>> > > > > >>>>> discussion
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> and a
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> small group of people who can work together to
>> complete
>> > it
>> > > > > >>>>> after
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hussein's
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> POC)
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * speed up the image release - with ARM runners
>> (which
>> > we
>> > > > > >>>>> might be
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> able
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> do independently as recently I think we have
>> > > > > >>>>> hypervisor-enabled
>> > > > > >>>>>> ARM
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> images
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> available as public runners as github made it
>> generally
>> > > > > >>>>>> available).
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * speed up the doc builds for airflow-site - we
>> (mainly
>> > > > > >>>>> Pavan) are
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> close to
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> complete offloading of the historical release docs
>> to S3
>> > > > > >> and I
>> > > > > >>>>>> hope
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> it
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> will
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cut down a lot on doc publishing workflows.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> J,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
>> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS} Enabled experiment auto-merge feature

[Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>]

"-1" was backed with rationale discussion and no one has said it was a bad
idea but you have said it is "negative".

On Thu, 1 May 2025 at 14:59, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:

> > That said, I want to push back on the framing of some feedback as
> “negative.” I really appreciate the folks who raised concerns, those
> perspectives are vital to making the project stronger and more inclusive.
>
> I think what I wanted to say is that I think we should all exercise
> empathy. It's super easy to say "-1" but it's harder to say "It's a good
> idea but ..". Psychological effect of the "-1" is that it "cuts the wings"
> of the person who has some idea and wants to follow it through. The
> psychological effect of "cool idea, but" is that it - more often than not -
> make the person more energised and inspired to look for a better solution.
>
> And yes I know different people have different communication style, and
> there are cultural differences and all that. But I would personally love to
> see more "yes, but" than "no".
>
> That's all I want to say..
>
> J/
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 1, 2025 at 11:23 AM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the energy and initiative here.
> >
> > That said, I want to push back on the framing of some feedback as
> > “negative.” I really appreciate the folks who raised concerns, those
> > perspectives are vital to making the project stronger and more inclusive.
> >
> > Let’s make sure we continue to welcome both enthusiasm and critique. As
> > the ASF
> > Code of Conduct <https://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct>
> > reminds us, thoughtful disagreement and diverse viewpoints are not only
> > expected but encouraged. Referring to concerns as “negative”, even
> > unintentionally, can discourage people from speaking up, which we want to
> > avoid.
> >
> > We all want what’s best for Airflow, and part of that is making sure
> > everyone feels safe to contribute, especially when something doesn’t feel
> > right.
> >
> > >Rather than focusing on the negative side, try to figure out a way to
> make
> > it work :)
> >
> > Back to the proposal from Jens and you -  Yes that (a comment allowing to
> > still merge/auto-merge the PR) alleviates my concern.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Kaxil
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 1 May 2025 at 12:54, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I really like Jens's line of thought. Rather than focusing on the
> > negative
> > > side, try to figure out a way to make it work :). That's very
> inspiring.
> > >
> > > I think the original slack proposal of Jens was rather brittle, but it
> > made
> > > me think that we can actually implement what we need rather quickly.
> > >
> > > Following the `Dependabot` style @rebase - we could implement - very
> > easily
> > > - there are ready actions for that and other projects like apache beam
> > are
> > > using similar workflows - the comment workflow, where maintainer who
> > wants
> > > to merge  (or auto-merge) such "failing" PR would just comment it
> > > appropriately.
> > >
> > > What we really want is to make the "finalize" check succeed, so if the
> PR
> > > misses the "Finalize" step, a committer would just have to comment it
> > with
> > > "@bypass-finalize` or `@finalize` or similar. And what it would do, it
> > > would use Github API to make the "Finalize" check succeed. There is an
> > API
> > > for that.
> > >
> > > That has a few nice properties:
> > >
> > > * it uses the same GitHub UI we use, no need to have an "escape hatch"
> > and
> > > separate remote
> > > * it follows the pattern we already agreed to some time ago and
> generally
> > > follow -> we are supposed (as maintainers) to explain when we are
> merging
> > > such failing PR to show that this is a deliberate action - I usually
> for
> > > example always add "fixed already in main" or "Fixed already by #..."
> > > comment - you really need a comment in this case explaining that it was
> > not
> > > accidental "merge".
> > > * so if we have such workflow, it would "force" maintainer to make a
> > > deliberate decision "yes I want to merge it despite failing" and make a
> > > comment in the PR
> > > * it would only set the "finalize" check to succeed, so still you would
> > not
> > > be able to merge it without having an approval - this would only bypass
> > the
> > > "finalize" check
> > >
> > > WDYT? Would that address all concerns with auto-merge ? Does it make
> > sense
> > > and is it "easy enough" to follow? Or are there any other concerns?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 10:36 PM Pavankumar Gopidesu <
> > > gopidesupavan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am also in line with Jens. The auto-merge feature works well in
> > keeping
> > > > the CI pipeline green before merging.
> > > > However, there are situations where we need to merge changes quickly.
> > > > Instead of using an
> > > > escape route (which I’m not a fan of, as it carries risks if
> something
> > > goes
> > > > wrong—even though we can revert, it’s still a concern),
> > > > we could explore ways to dynamically bypass certain checks when
> > necessary
> > > > or maybe some help from INFRA?
> > > >
> > > > Pavan
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 9:22 PM Jens Scheffler
> > > <j_scheffler@gmx.de.invalid
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > As there was a call for more opinions. Here I am :-D
> > > > >
> > > > > I understand both positions. As I like AutoMerge very much I am not
> > > > > giving up :-D I'd like to keep it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think there is still an option in between. Maybe need to draft a
> > bit
> > > > > of thoughts but I think we could build something still around the
> > > > > limitations allowing automation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Added a minor thought to the slack chat. But if community rules
> > propose
> > > > > to push to devchennel let me know.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jens
> > > > >
> > > > > On 30.04.25 11:04, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> > > > > > Yeah, And I would encourage everyone to try it and provide
> feedback
> > > > while
> > > > > > it is enabled.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So far we identified a few things (and fix them) that made it
> > > > borderline
> > > > > > unusable (bug in workflow for UI-only changes, GitHub starting to
> > > > 429-us
> > > > > > with too many requests, and the mysterious "hanging" of the
> latest
> > > > > > botocore/celery (?) "special tests" -> all that is already
> > addressed
> > > in
> > > > > > main, and those issues should not happen (hopefully), so I'd say
> we
> > > can
> > > > > now
> > > > > > "truly" see how it might work.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And one comment from my side - indeed, I find it nice actually,
> but
> > > > it's
> > > > > > definitely not a "deal breaker"- so if others find it too
> > > disruptive, I
> > > > > am
> > > > > > definitely not going to die on this hill, I just thought it does
> > > > improve
> > > > > > the workflow in the way that it allows for mostly "fire and
> forget"
> > > > when
> > > > > > you approve the workflow, one thing that it definitely improves
> is
> > > that
> > > > > you
> > > > > > do not have to remember about coming back to merge a request when
> > CI
> > > > > > succeeds.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > J.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 10:58 AM Kaxil Naik <kaxilnaik@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Forgot to note an additional point in Summary: If we find
> anything
> > > > > blocking
> > > > > >> us in that period, we will merge
> > > > > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/50009 to disable
> > auto-merge.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 14:26, Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Jarek & I discussed it on Slack in #internal-airflow-ci-cd.
> > Summary
> > > > > >> below:
> > > > > >>> I have a PR to disable it:
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/50009.
> > > > > >>> However, given that many countries will be on holiday on May 1
> > due
> > > to
> > > > > >>> Labour Day, and some teething issues were fixed yesterday, we
> > will
> > > > let
> > > > > it
> > > > > >>> run for a few more days so other committers and contributors
> can
> > > get
> > > > a
> > > > > >>> chance to try it out and share their experience after the
> > > > > >> experiment/trial
> > > > > >>> is concluded.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 13:59, Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> Whoops yeah.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Yep. Because it did not have all conversations resolved. We
> > also
> > > > have
> > > > > >>>> "require resolved conversation" as one of the branch
> protection
> > > > > >>>> conditions.
> > > > > >>>> I resolved the conversation and it got merged automatically.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Let's adapt it when ready though, I don't see any urgency of
> > > getting
> > > > > >>>> enabling auto-merge or getting it contributed immediately to
> asf
> > > > INFRA
> > > > > >> when
> > > > > >>>> it isn't critical. It is about priortization
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> I'd say - if that is really bothering us - let's shape the
> > feature
> > > > > >> rather
> > > > > >>>>> than outright reject it.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 12:37, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 7:55 AM Kaxil Naik <
> > kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>> To the point that the original PR is still not merged even
> > > after I
> > > > > >> had
> > > > > >>>>>> re-triggered the failed tests yesterday:
> > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49727
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Yep. Because it did not have all conversations resolved. We
> > also
> > > > have
> > > > > >>>>> "require resolved conversation" as one of the branch
> protection
> > > > > >>>>> conditions.
> > > > > >>>>> I resolved the conversation and it got merged automatically.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 11:20, Kaxil Naik <
> kaxilnaik@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> The gitbox escape hatch isn't it though -- if we are to
> allow
> > > > that
> > > > > >>>>> why
> > > > > >>>>>> not
> > > > > >>>>>>> just allow people to merge it directly from github that to
> go
> > > via
> > > > > >> an
> > > > > >>>>>>> "escape hatch".
> > > > > >>>>> Generally speaking GitHub has this option. Currently "admins"
> > > have
> > > > a
> > > > > >>>>> possibility of overriding branch protection (via UI). And it
> > > would
> > > > be
> > > > > >>>>> possible - if INFRA will allow it - to possibly add an
> > .asf.yaml
> > > > > >> feature
> > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>> also allow branch protection override for all committers or a
> > > > subset
> > > > > of
> > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>> committers (PMC Members ? ). This is more of a limitation of
> > the
> > > > > >> current
> > > > > >>>>> implementation of permissions than a missing feature. If we
> all
> > > > feel
> > > > > >> that
> > > > > >>>>> the gitbox escape hatch is not enough, we can likely even
> > > > contribute
> > > > > >>>>> such a
> > > > > >>>>> feature to .asf.yaml - if INFRA will be ok with the option.
> > It's
> > > > very
> > > > > >>>>> easy
> > > > > >>>>> to contribute to - INFRA made it possible, we have a new
> > > framework:
> > > > > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/infrastructure-asfyaml - we can
> even
> > > > > >> implement
> > > > > >>>>> "airflow-only" .asf.yaml feature, that will not be initially
> > > > > available
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >>>>> other ASF projects and later we can promote it to be
> available
> > to
> > > > > >>>>> everyone.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> I'd say - if that is really bothering us - let's shape the
> > > feature
> > > > > >> rather
> > > > > >>>>> than outright reject it.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> I am -1 on this auto-merge feature
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Understood :). But let's give it a bit more time as well and
> > > maybe
> > > > > >>>>> improve
> > > > > >>>>> it (see above) - unless we really feel we are blocked now -
> > then
> > > it
> > > > > >>>>> should
> > > > > >>>>> be as easy as merging an .asf.yaml change to disable it.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 11:18, Kaxil Naik <
> > kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>> That’s not a single person, it impacts the committers and
> > the
> > > PR
> > > > > >>>>> author
> > > > > >>>>>>>> involved too. I don’t see how team productivity soars
> here.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 02:39, Jarek Potiuk <
> > jarek@potiuk.com>
> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> But yes, I also miss the previous "merge because I think
> > it's
> > > > > >> safe"
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> workflow.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> I badly miss it. Personally, It hurts my productivity.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> But I think the "require status check" to be green is
> great
> > > for
> > > > > >>>>> "team
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> productivity". Usually when single person is impacted
> more
> > > than
> > > > > >>>>> team in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> general, it's worse for the person impacted, but team
> > > > > >> productivity
> > > > > >>>>>> soars.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 11:03 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > jarek@potiuk.com>
> > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Just to add comment:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> a) there was some instability of "celery/boto" hanging
> > tests
> > > > > >>>>> today
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> that is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> rather difficult to address - but we worked around it by
> > > just
> > > > > >>>>>> removing
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> "special-tests" from pre-requisite of merging
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> b) GitHub today (like literally today!) started to be
> > picky
> > > on
> > > > > >>>>> "too
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> many
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> requests" - I addressed it today for both helm chart and
> > our
> > > > > >>>>> release
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> tests
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> (we are using bearer-token to authenticate and increase
> > the
> > > > > >>>>> limit -
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> and we
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> added cache on downloading json schema that was
> downloaded
> > > > > >>>>> "per-test"
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> c) in cases like the one mentioned above with
> intermittent
> > > > > >>>>> failures -
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> simple "rerun failed jobs" (assuming it will succeed
> after
> > > > > >>>>> rerun) -
> > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> essentially equivalent of "merge" (unless it fails again
> > > which
> > > > > >>>>> for me
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> is a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> signal of "DO NOT MERGE")
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> d) we always have the "gitbox" escape hatch - that
> allows
> > > any
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> committer to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> push the fix directly, bypassing the limits:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> This is a simple thing for committers:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> git add remote gitbox
> > > > > >>>>>> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/airflow.git
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> git fetch gitbox
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> git commit --amend ("add #PR number")
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> git push gitbox BRANCH_NAME:main (you need to provide
> your
> > > > > >>>>> apache id
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> password)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> This is a nice escape hatch that we can use as
> > "exceptional
> > > > > >>>>>> workflow" -
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> and it works - I did it quite a few times over the last
> > few
> > > > > >>>>> days. Not
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> UI
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> controlled, but IMHO exceptional workflow should be -
> > well
> > > -
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> exceptional.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 8:52 PM Kaxil Naik <
> > > > > >> kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Similar experience as Elad, I am in favor of disabling
> it
> > > > tbh.
> > > > > >>>>> For
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> example,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49727 has a
> > failing
> > > > > >>>>> test as
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> below
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> which is not an issue, and test passes locally so I
> would
> > > > want
> > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> merge it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> but I can't.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> FAILED
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> helm-tests/tests/helm_tests/airflow_aux/test_basic_helm_chart.py::TestBaseChartTest::test_priority_classes
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> - requests.exceptions.HTTPError: 429 Client Error: Too
> > Many
> > > > > >>>>> Requests
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> url:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/yannh/kubernetes-json-schema/master/v1.29.1-standalone-strict/priorityclass-scheduling-v1.json
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 at 18:29, Jarek Potiuk <
> > > jarek@potiuk.com
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 1:46 PM Elad Kalif <
> > > > > >>>>> eladkal@apache.org>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for that Jarek!
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I find the lack of ability to merge PRs fast very
> > > limiting
> > > > > >>>>> but
> > > > > >>>>>> it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> might
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> just something to get used to.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed. I also see it, but also I got a few manually
> > > pushed
> > > > > >>>>> "must
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> fix
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> quickly" to gitbox, and actually I find it really
> nice -
> > > > > >>>>> because
> > > > > >>>>>> it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> still possible, but it require some extra effort and
> > > > > >>>>> deliberate
> > > > > >>>>>> "ok
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> one really should be pushed to unblock everyone" - as
> > long
> > > > > >> as
> > > > > >>>>> we
> > > > > >>>>>> all
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (especially those people that are active in the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> #internal-airfow-ci-cd channel) know how to do it and
> > can
> > > > > >> fix
> > > > > >>>>>> things
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> quickly, this is actually a nice way to make it into
> > > > > >>>>> "exceptional"
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> workflow
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - which will push us more in making sure airflow main
> is
> > > > > >>>>> really
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> "green"
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> -
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> which ultimately is our goal to make it as green as
> > > possible
> > > > > >>>>> all
> > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> time.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> What **might help with that** (and also keeping the
> > > "enable
> > > > > >>>>> auto
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> merge"
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> might motivate it more to) is to:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * speed up the builds - we MUST prioritise now ARC
> (K8S
> > > > > >>>>>> self-hosted
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> runners) to make our builds simply faster - I started
> a
> > > > > >>>>> discussion
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> and a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> small group of people who can work together to
> complete
> > it
> > > > > >>>>> after
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hussein's
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> POC)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * speed up the image release - with ARM runners (which
> > we
> > > > > >>>>> might be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> able
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> do independently as recently I think we have
> > > > > >>>>> hypervisor-enabled
> > > > > >>>>>> ARM
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> images
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> available as public runners as github made it
> generally
> > > > > >>>>>> available).
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * speed up the doc builds for airflow-site - we
> (mainly
> > > > > >>>>> Pavan) are
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> close to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> complete offloading of the historical release docs to
> S3
> > > > > >> and I
> > > > > >>>>>> hope
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cut down a lot on doc publishing workflows.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> J,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS} Enabled experiment auto-merge feature

[Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>]

> That said, I want to push back on the framing of some feedback as
“negative.” I really appreciate the folks who raised concerns, those
perspectives are vital to making the project stronger and more inclusive.

I think what I wanted to say is that I think we should all exercise
empathy. It's super easy to say "-1" but it's harder to say "It's a good
idea but ..". Psychological effect of the "-1" is that it "cuts the wings"
of the person who has some idea and wants to follow it through. The
psychological effect of "cool idea, but" is that it - more often than not -
make the person more energised and inspired to look for a better solution.

And yes I know different people have different communication style, and
there are cultural differences and all that. But I would personally love to
see more "yes, but" than "no".

That's all I want to say..

J/





On Thu, May 1, 2025 at 11:23 AM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the energy and initiative here.
>
> That said, I want to push back on the framing of some feedback as
> “negative.” I really appreciate the folks who raised concerns, those
> perspectives are vital to making the project stronger and more inclusive.
>
> Let’s make sure we continue to welcome both enthusiasm and critique. As
> the ASF
> Code of Conduct <https://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct>
> reminds us, thoughtful disagreement and diverse viewpoints are not only
> expected but encouraged. Referring to concerns as “negative”, even
> unintentionally, can discourage people from speaking up, which we want to
> avoid.
>
> We all want what’s best for Airflow, and part of that is making sure
> everyone feels safe to contribute, especially when something doesn’t feel
> right.
>
> >Rather than focusing on the negative side, try to figure out a way to make
> it work :)
>
> Back to the proposal from Jens and you -  Yes that (a comment allowing to
> still merge/auto-merge the PR) alleviates my concern.
>
> Regards,
> Kaxil
>
>
>
> On Thu, 1 May 2025 at 12:54, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
>
> > I really like Jens's line of thought. Rather than focusing on the
> negative
> > side, try to figure out a way to make it work :). That's very inspiring.
> >
> > I think the original slack proposal of Jens was rather brittle, but it
> made
> > me think that we can actually implement what we need rather quickly.
> >
> > Following the `Dependabot` style @rebase - we could implement - very
> easily
> > - there are ready actions for that and other projects like apache beam
> are
> > using similar workflows - the comment workflow, where maintainer who
> wants
> > to merge  (or auto-merge) such "failing" PR would just comment it
> > appropriately.
> >
> > What we really want is to make the "finalize" check succeed, so if the PR
> > misses the "Finalize" step, a committer would just have to comment it
> with
> > "@bypass-finalize` or `@finalize` or similar. And what it would do, it
> > would use Github API to make the "Finalize" check succeed. There is an
> API
> > for that.
> >
> > That has a few nice properties:
> >
> > * it uses the same GitHub UI we use, no need to have an "escape hatch"
> and
> > separate remote
> > * it follows the pattern we already agreed to some time ago and generally
> > follow -> we are supposed (as maintainers) to explain when we are merging
> > such failing PR to show that this is a deliberate action - I usually for
> > example always add "fixed already in main" or "Fixed already by #..."
> > comment - you really need a comment in this case explaining that it was
> not
> > accidental "merge".
> > * so if we have such workflow, it would "force" maintainer to make a
> > deliberate decision "yes I want to merge it despite failing" and make a
> > comment in the PR
> > * it would only set the "finalize" check to succeed, so still you would
> not
> > be able to merge it without having an approval - this would only bypass
> the
> > "finalize" check
> >
> > WDYT? Would that address all concerns with auto-merge ? Does it make
> sense
> > and is it "easy enough" to follow? Or are there any other concerns?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 10:36 PM Pavankumar Gopidesu <
> > gopidesupavan@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I am also in line with Jens. The auto-merge feature works well in
> keeping
> > > the CI pipeline green before merging.
> > > However, there are situations where we need to merge changes quickly.
> > > Instead of using an
> > > escape route (which I’m not a fan of, as it carries risks if something
> > goes
> > > wrong—even though we can revert, it’s still a concern),
> > > we could explore ways to dynamically bypass certain checks when
> necessary
> > > or maybe some help from INFRA?
> > >
> > > Pavan
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 9:22 PM Jens Scheffler
> > <j_scheffler@gmx.de.invalid
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > As there was a call for more opinions. Here I am :-D
> > > >
> > > > I understand both positions. As I like AutoMerge very much I am not
> > > > giving up :-D I'd like to keep it.
> > > >
> > > > I think there is still an option in between. Maybe need to draft a
> bit
> > > > of thoughts but I think we could build something still around the
> > > > limitations allowing automation.
> > > >
> > > > Added a minor thought to the slack chat. But if community rules
> propose
> > > > to push to devchennel let me know.
> > > >
> > > > Jens
> > > >
> > > > On 30.04.25 11:04, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> > > > > Yeah, And I would encourage everyone to try it and provide feedback
> > > while
> > > > > it is enabled.
> > > > >
> > > > > So far we identified a few things (and fix them) that made it
> > > borderline
> > > > > unusable (bug in workflow for UI-only changes, GitHub starting to
> > > 429-us
> > > > > with too many requests, and the mysterious "hanging" of the latest
> > > > > botocore/celery (?) "special tests" -> all that is already
> addressed
> > in
> > > > > main, and those issues should not happen (hopefully), so I'd say we
> > can
> > > > now
> > > > > "truly" see how it might work.
> > > > >
> > > > > And one comment from my side - indeed, I find it nice actually, but
> > > it's
> > > > > definitely not a "deal breaker"- so if others find it too
> > disruptive, I
> > > > am
> > > > > definitely not going to die on this hill, I just thought it does
> > > improve
> > > > > the workflow in the way that it allows for mostly "fire and forget"
> > > when
> > > > > you approve the workflow, one thing that it definitely improves is
> > that
> > > > you
> > > > > do not have to remember about coming back to merge a request when
> CI
> > > > > succeeds.
> > > > >
> > > > > J.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 10:58 AM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Forgot to note an additional point in Summary: If we find anything
> > > > blocking
> > > > >> us in that period, we will merge
> > > > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/50009 to disable
> auto-merge.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 14:26, Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Jarek & I discussed it on Slack in #internal-airflow-ci-cd.
> Summary
> > > > >> below:
> > > > >>> I have a PR to disable it:
> > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/50009.
> > > > >>> However, given that many countries will be on holiday on May 1
> due
> > to
> > > > >>> Labour Day, and some teething issues were fixed yesterday, we
> will
> > > let
> > > > it
> > > > >>> run for a few more days so other committers and contributors can
> > get
> > > a
> > > > >>> chance to try it out and share their experience after the
> > > > >> experiment/trial
> > > > >>> is concluded.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 13:59, Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> Whoops yeah.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> Yep. Because it did not have all conversations resolved. We
> also
> > > have
> > > > >>>> "require resolved conversation" as one of the branch protection
> > > > >>>> conditions.
> > > > >>>> I resolved the conversation and it got merged automatically.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Let's adapt it when ready though, I don't see any urgency of
> > getting
> > > > >>>> enabling auto-merge or getting it contributed immediately to asf
> > > INFRA
> > > > >> when
> > > > >>>> it isn't critical. It is about priortization
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I'd say - if that is really bothering us - let's shape the
> feature
> > > > >> rather
> > > > >>>>> than outright reject it.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 12:37, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 7:55 AM Kaxil Naik <
> kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>> To the point that the original PR is still not merged even
> > after I
> > > > >> had
> > > > >>>>>> re-triggered the failed tests yesterday:
> > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49727
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Yep. Because it did not have all conversations resolved. We
> also
> > > have
> > > > >>>>> "require resolved conversation" as one of the branch protection
> > > > >>>>> conditions.
> > > > >>>>> I resolved the conversation and it got merged automatically.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 11:20, Kaxil Naik <kaxilnaik@gmail.com
> >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>> The gitbox escape hatch isn't it though -- if we are to allow
> > > that
> > > > >>>>> why
> > > > >>>>>> not
> > > > >>>>>>> just allow people to merge it directly from github that to go
> > via
> > > > >> an
> > > > >>>>>>> "escape hatch".
> > > > >>>>> Generally speaking GitHub has this option. Currently "admins"
> > have
> > > a
> > > > >>>>> possibility of overriding branch protection (via UI). And it
> > would
> > > be
> > > > >>>>> possible - if INFRA will allow it - to possibly add an
> .asf.yaml
> > > > >> feature
> > > > >>>>> to
> > > > >>>>> also allow branch protection override for all committers or a
> > > subset
> > > > of
> > > > >>>>> the
> > > > >>>>> committers (PMC Members ? ). This is more of a limitation of
> the
> > > > >> current
> > > > >>>>> implementation of permissions than a missing feature. If we all
> > > feel
> > > > >> that
> > > > >>>>> the gitbox escape hatch is not enough, we can likely even
> > > contribute
> > > > >>>>> such a
> > > > >>>>> feature to .asf.yaml - if INFRA will be ok with the option.
> It's
> > > very
> > > > >>>>> easy
> > > > >>>>> to contribute to - INFRA made it possible, we have a new
> > framework:
> > > > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/infrastructure-asfyaml - we can even
> > > > >> implement
> > > > >>>>> "airflow-only" .asf.yaml feature, that will not be initially
> > > > available
> > > > >> to
> > > > >>>>> other ASF projects and later we can promote it to be available
> to
> > > > >>>>> everyone.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> I'd say - if that is really bothering us - let's shape the
> > feature
> > > > >> rather
> > > > >>>>> than outright reject it.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> I am -1 on this auto-merge feature
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Understood :). But let's give it a bit more time as well and
> > maybe
> > > > >>>>> improve
> > > > >>>>> it (see above) - unless we really feel we are blocked now -
> then
> > it
> > > > >>>>> should
> > > > >>>>> be as easy as merging an .asf.yaml change to disable it.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 11:18, Kaxil Naik <
> kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>> That’s not a single person, it impacts the committers and
> the
> > PR
> > > > >>>>> author
> > > > >>>>>>>> involved too. I don’t see how team productivity soars here.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 02:39, Jarek Potiuk <
> jarek@potiuk.com>
> > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>> But yes, I also miss the previous "merge because I think
> it's
> > > > >> safe"
> > > > >>>>>>>>> workflow.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> I badly miss it. Personally, It hurts my productivity.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> But I think the "require status check" to be green is great
> > for
> > > > >>>>> "team
> > > > >>>>>>>>> productivity". Usually when single person is impacted more
> > than
> > > > >>>>> team in
> > > > >>>>>>>>> general, it's worse for the person impacted, but team
> > > > >> productivity
> > > > >>>>>> soars.
> > > > >>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 11:03 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > jarek@potiuk.com>
> > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Just to add comment:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> a) there was some instability of "celery/boto" hanging
> tests
> > > > >>>>> today
> > > > >>>>>>>>> that is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> rather difficult to address - but we worked around it by
> > just
> > > > >>>>>> removing
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> "special-tests" from pre-requisite of merging
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> b) GitHub today (like literally today!) started to be
> picky
> > on
> > > > >>>>> "too
> > > > >>>>>>>>> many
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> requests" - I addressed it today for both helm chart and
> our
> > > > >>>>> release
> > > > >>>>>>>>> tests
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> (we are using bearer-token to authenticate and increase
> the
> > > > >>>>> limit -
> > > > >>>>>>>>> and we
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> added cache on downloading json schema that was downloaded
> > > > >>>>> "per-test"
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> c) in cases like the one mentioned above with intermittent
> > > > >>>>> failures -
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> simple "rerun failed jobs" (assuming it will succeed after
> > > > >>>>> rerun) -
> > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> essentially equivalent of "merge" (unless it fails again
> > which
> > > > >>>>> for me
> > > > >>>>>>>>> is a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> signal of "DO NOT MERGE")
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> d) we always have the "gitbox" escape hatch - that allows
> > any
> > > > >>>>>>>>> committer to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> push the fix directly, bypassing the limits:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> This is a simple thing for committers:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> git add remote gitbox
> > > > >>>>>> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/airflow.git
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> git fetch gitbox
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> git commit --amend ("add #PR number")
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> git push gitbox BRANCH_NAME:main (you need to provide your
> > > > >>>>> apache id
> > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> password)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> This is a nice escape hatch that we can use as
> "exceptional
> > > > >>>>>> workflow" -
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> and it works - I did it quite a few times over the last
> few
> > > > >>>>> days. Not
> > > > >>>>>>>>> UI
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> controlled, but IMHO exceptional workflow should be -
> well
> > -
> > > > >>>>>>>>> exceptional.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 8:52 PM Kaxil Naik <
> > > > >> kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Similar experience as Elad, I am in favor of disabling it
> > > tbh.
> > > > >>>>> For
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> example,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49727 has a
> failing
> > > > >>>>> test as
> > > > >>>>>>>>> below
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> which is not an issue, and test passes locally so I would
> > > want
> > > > >>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>> merge it
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> but I can't.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> FAILED
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> helm-tests/tests/helm_tests/airflow_aux/test_basic_helm_chart.py::TestBaseChartTest::test_priority_classes
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> - requests.exceptions.HTTPError: 429 Client Error: Too
> Many
> > > > >>>>> Requests
> > > > >>>>>>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> url:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/yannh/kubernetes-json-schema/master/v1.29.1-standalone-strict/priorityclass-scheduling-v1.json
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 at 18:29, Jarek Potiuk <
> > jarek@potiuk.com
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 1:46 PM Elad Kalif <
> > > > >>>>> eladkal@apache.org>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for that Jarek!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I find the lack of ability to merge PRs fast very
> > limiting
> > > > >>>>> but
> > > > >>>>>> it
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> might
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> just something to get used to.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed. I also see it, but also I got a few manually
> > pushed
> > > > >>>>> "must
> > > > >>>>>>>>> fix
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> quickly" to gitbox, and actually I find it really nice -
> > > > >>>>> because
> > > > >>>>>> it
> > > > >>>>>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> still possible, but it require some extra effort and
> > > > >>>>> deliberate
> > > > >>>>>> "ok
> > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> one really should be pushed to unblock everyone" - as
> long
> > > > >> as
> > > > >>>>> we
> > > > >>>>>> all
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (especially those people that are active in the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> #internal-airfow-ci-cd channel) know how to do it and
> can
> > > > >> fix
> > > > >>>>>> things
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> quickly, this is actually a nice way to make it into
> > > > >>>>> "exceptional"
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> workflow
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - which will push us more in making sure airflow main is
> > > > >>>>> really
> > > > >>>>>>>>> "green"
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> -
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> which ultimately is our goal to make it as green as
> > possible
> > > > >>>>> all
> > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> time.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> What **might help with that** (and also keeping the
> > "enable
> > > > >>>>> auto
> > > > >>>>>>>>> merge"
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> might motivate it more to) is to:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * speed up the builds - we MUST prioritise now ARC (K8S
> > > > >>>>>> self-hosted
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> runners) to make our builds simply faster - I started a
> > > > >>>>> discussion
> > > > >>>>>>>>> and a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> small group of people who can work together to complete
> it
> > > > >>>>> after
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hussein's
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> POC)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * speed up the image release - with ARM runners (which
> we
> > > > >>>>> might be
> > > > >>>>>>>>> able
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> do independently as recently I think we have
> > > > >>>>> hypervisor-enabled
> > > > >>>>>> ARM
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> images
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> available as public runners as github made it generally
> > > > >>>>>> available).
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * speed up the doc builds for airflow-site - we (mainly
> > > > >>>>> Pavan) are
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> close to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> complete offloading of the historical release docs to S3
> > > > >> and I
> > > > >>>>>> hope
> > > > >>>>>>>>> it
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cut down a lot on doc publishing workflows.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> J,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS} Enabled experiment auto-merge feature

[Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>]

Thanks for the energy and initiative here.

That said, I want to push back on the framing of some feedback as
“negative.” I really appreciate the folks who raised concerns, those
perspectives are vital to making the project stronger and more inclusive.

Let’s make sure we continue to welcome both enthusiasm and critique. As the ASF
Code of Conduct <https://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct>
reminds us, thoughtful disagreement and diverse viewpoints are not only
expected but encouraged. Referring to concerns as “negative”, even
unintentionally, can discourage people from speaking up, which we want to
avoid.

We all want what’s best for Airflow, and part of that is making sure
everyone feels safe to contribute, especially when something doesn’t feel
right.

>Rather than focusing on the negative side, try to figure out a way to make
it work :)

Back to the proposal from Jens and you -  Yes that (a comment allowing to
still merge/auto-merge the PR) alleviates my concern.

Regards,
Kaxil



On Thu, 1 May 2025 at 12:54, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:

> I really like Jens's line of thought. Rather than focusing on the negative
> side, try to figure out a way to make it work :). That's very inspiring.
>
> I think the original slack proposal of Jens was rather brittle, but it made
> me think that we can actually implement what we need rather quickly.
>
> Following the `Dependabot` style @rebase - we could implement - very easily
> - there are ready actions for that and other projects like apache beam are
> using similar workflows - the comment workflow, where maintainer who wants
> to merge  (or auto-merge) such "failing" PR would just comment it
> appropriately.
>
> What we really want is to make the "finalize" check succeed, so if the PR
> misses the "Finalize" step, a committer would just have to comment it with
> "@bypass-finalize` or `@finalize` or similar. And what it would do, it
> would use Github API to make the "Finalize" check succeed. There is an API
> for that.
>
> That has a few nice properties:
>
> * it uses the same GitHub UI we use, no need to have an "escape hatch" and
> separate remote
> * it follows the pattern we already agreed to some time ago and generally
> follow -> we are supposed (as maintainers) to explain when we are merging
> such failing PR to show that this is a deliberate action - I usually for
> example always add "fixed already in main" or "Fixed already by #..."
> comment - you really need a comment in this case explaining that it was not
> accidental "merge".
> * so if we have such workflow, it would "force" maintainer to make a
> deliberate decision "yes I want to merge it despite failing" and make a
> comment in the PR
> * it would only set the "finalize" check to succeed, so still you would not
> be able to merge it without having an approval - this would only bypass the
> "finalize" check
>
> WDYT? Would that address all concerns with auto-merge ? Does it make sense
> and is it "easy enough" to follow? Or are there any other concerns?
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 10:36 PM Pavankumar Gopidesu <
> gopidesupavan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am also in line with Jens. The auto-merge feature works well in keeping
> > the CI pipeline green before merging.
> > However, there are situations where we need to merge changes quickly.
> > Instead of using an
> > escape route (which I’m not a fan of, as it carries risks if something
> goes
> > wrong—even though we can revert, it’s still a concern),
> > we could explore ways to dynamically bypass certain checks when necessary
> > or maybe some help from INFRA?
> >
> > Pavan
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 9:22 PM Jens Scheffler
> <j_scheffler@gmx.de.invalid
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > As there was a call for more opinions. Here I am :-D
> > >
> > > I understand both positions. As I like AutoMerge very much I am not
> > > giving up :-D I'd like to keep it.
> > >
> > > I think there is still an option in between. Maybe need to draft a bit
> > > of thoughts but I think we could build something still around the
> > > limitations allowing automation.
> > >
> > > Added a minor thought to the slack chat. But if community rules propose
> > > to push to devchennel let me know.
> > >
> > > Jens
> > >
> > > On 30.04.25 11:04, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> > > > Yeah, And I would encourage everyone to try it and provide feedback
> > while
> > > > it is enabled.
> > > >
> > > > So far we identified a few things (and fix them) that made it
> > borderline
> > > > unusable (bug in workflow for UI-only changes, GitHub starting to
> > 429-us
> > > > with too many requests, and the mysterious "hanging" of the latest
> > > > botocore/celery (?) "special tests" -> all that is already addressed
> in
> > > > main, and those issues should not happen (hopefully), so I'd say we
> can
> > > now
> > > > "truly" see how it might work.
> > > >
> > > > And one comment from my side - indeed, I find it nice actually, but
> > it's
> > > > definitely not a "deal breaker"- so if others find it too
> disruptive, I
> > > am
> > > > definitely not going to die on this hill, I just thought it does
> > improve
> > > > the workflow in the way that it allows for mostly "fire and forget"
> > when
> > > > you approve the workflow, one thing that it definitely improves is
> that
> > > you
> > > > do not have to remember about coming back to merge a request when CI
> > > > succeeds.
> > > >
> > > > J.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 10:58 AM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Forgot to note an additional point in Summary: If we find anything
> > > blocking
> > > >> us in that period, we will merge
> > > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/50009 to disable auto-merge.
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 14:26, Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Jarek & I discussed it on Slack in #internal-airflow-ci-cd. Summary
> > > >> below:
> > > >>> I have a PR to disable it:
> > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/50009.
> > > >>> However, given that many countries will be on holiday on May 1 due
> to
> > > >>> Labour Day, and some teething issues were fixed yesterday, we will
> > let
> > > it
> > > >>> run for a few more days so other committers and contributors can
> get
> > a
> > > >>> chance to try it out and share their experience after the
> > > >> experiment/trial
> > > >>> is concluded.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 13:59, Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Whoops yeah.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Yep. Because it did not have all conversations resolved. We also
> > have
> > > >>>> "require resolved conversation" as one of the branch protection
> > > >>>> conditions.
> > > >>>> I resolved the conversation and it got merged automatically.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Let's adapt it when ready though, I don't see any urgency of
> getting
> > > >>>> enabling auto-merge or getting it contributed immediately to asf
> > INFRA
> > > >> when
> > > >>>> it isn't critical. It is about priortization
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I'd say - if that is really bothering us - let's shape the feature
> > > >> rather
> > > >>>>> than outright reject it.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 12:37, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 7:55 AM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>>>>> To the point that the original PR is still not merged even
> after I
> > > >> had
> > > >>>>>> re-triggered the failed tests yesterday:
> > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49727
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>> Yep. Because it did not have all conversations resolved. We also
> > have
> > > >>>>> "require resolved conversation" as one of the branch protection
> > > >>>>> conditions.
> > > >>>>> I resolved the conversation and it got merged automatically.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 11:20, Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> The gitbox escape hatch isn't it though -- if we are to allow
> > that
> > > >>>>> why
> > > >>>>>> not
> > > >>>>>>> just allow people to merge it directly from github that to go
> via
> > > >> an
> > > >>>>>>> "escape hatch".
> > > >>>>> Generally speaking GitHub has this option. Currently "admins"
> have
> > a
> > > >>>>> possibility of overriding branch protection (via UI). And it
> would
> > be
> > > >>>>> possible - if INFRA will allow it - to possibly add an .asf.yaml
> > > >> feature
> > > >>>>> to
> > > >>>>> also allow branch protection override for all committers or a
> > subset
> > > of
> > > >>>>> the
> > > >>>>> committers (PMC Members ? ). This is more of a limitation of the
> > > >> current
> > > >>>>> implementation of permissions than a missing feature. If we all
> > feel
> > > >> that
> > > >>>>> the gitbox escape hatch is not enough, we can likely even
> > contribute
> > > >>>>> such a
> > > >>>>> feature to .asf.yaml - if INFRA will be ok with the option. It's
> > very
> > > >>>>> easy
> > > >>>>> to contribute to - INFRA made it possible, we have a new
> framework:
> > > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/infrastructure-asfyaml - we can even
> > > >> implement
> > > >>>>> "airflow-only" .asf.yaml feature, that will not be initially
> > > available
> > > >> to
> > > >>>>> other ASF projects and later we can promote it to be available to
> > > >>>>> everyone.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I'd say - if that is really bothering us - let's shape the
> feature
> > > >> rather
> > > >>>>> than outright reject it.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> I am -1 on this auto-merge feature
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>> Understood :). But let's give it a bit more time as well and
> maybe
> > > >>>>> improve
> > > >>>>> it (see above) - unless we really feel we are blocked now - then
> it
> > > >>>>> should
> > > >>>>> be as easy as merging an .asf.yaml change to disable it.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 11:18, Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> That’s not a single person, it impacts the committers and the
> PR
> > > >>>>> author
> > > >>>>>>>> involved too. I don’t see how team productivity soars here.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 02:39, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>> But yes, I also miss the previous "merge because I think it's
> > > >> safe"
> > > >>>>>>>>> workflow.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> I badly miss it. Personally, It hurts my productivity.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> But I think the "require status check" to be green is great
> for
> > > >>>>> "team
> > > >>>>>>>>> productivity". Usually when single person is impacted more
> than
> > > >>>>> team in
> > > >>>>>>>>> general, it's worse for the person impacted, but team
> > > >> productivity
> > > >>>>>> soars.
> > > >>>>>>>>> J.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 11:03 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > jarek@potiuk.com>
> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Just to add comment:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> a) there was some instability of "celery/boto" hanging tests
> > > >>>>> today
> > > >>>>>>>>> that is
> > > >>>>>>>>>> rather difficult to address - but we worked around it by
> just
> > > >>>>>> removing
> > > >>>>>>>>>> "special-tests" from pre-requisite of merging
> > > >>>>>>>>>> b) GitHub today (like literally today!) started to be picky
> on
> > > >>>>> "too
> > > >>>>>>>>> many
> > > >>>>>>>>>> requests" - I addressed it today for both helm chart and our
> > > >>>>> release
> > > >>>>>>>>> tests
> > > >>>>>>>>>> (we are using bearer-token to authenticate and increase the
> > > >>>>> limit -
> > > >>>>>>>>> and we
> > > >>>>>>>>>> added cache on downloading json schema that was downloaded
> > > >>>>> "per-test"
> > > >>>>>>>>>> c) in cases like the one mentioned above with intermittent
> > > >>>>> failures -
> > > >>>>>>>>>> simple "rerun failed jobs" (assuming it will succeed after
> > > >>>>> rerun) -
> > > >>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>> essentially equivalent of "merge" (unless it fails again
> which
> > > >>>>> for me
> > > >>>>>>>>> is a
> > > >>>>>>>>>> signal of "DO NOT MERGE")
> > > >>>>>>>>>> d) we always have the "gitbox" escape hatch - that allows
> any
> > > >>>>>>>>> committer to
> > > >>>>>>>>>> push the fix directly, bypassing the limits:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> This is a simple thing for committers:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> git add remote gitbox
> > > >>>>>> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/airflow.git
> > > >>>>>>>>>> git fetch gitbox
> > > >>>>>>>>>> git commit --amend ("add #PR number")
> > > >>>>>>>>>> git push gitbox BRANCH_NAME:main (you need to provide your
> > > >>>>> apache id
> > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>> password)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> This is a nice escape hatch that we can use as "exceptional
> > > >>>>>> workflow" -
> > > >>>>>>>>>> and it works - I did it quite a few times over the last few
> > > >>>>> days. Not
> > > >>>>>>>>> UI
> > > >>>>>>>>>> controlled, but IMHO exceptional workflow should be -  well
> -
> > > >>>>>>>>> exceptional.
> > > >>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 8:52 PM Kaxil Naik <
> > > >> kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Similar experience as Elad, I am in favor of disabling it
> > tbh.
> > > >>>>> For
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> example,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49727 has a failing
> > > >>>>> test as
> > > >>>>>>>>> below
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> which is not an issue, and test passes locally so I would
> > want
> > > >>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>> merge it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> but I can't.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> FAILED
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> helm-tests/tests/helm_tests/airflow_aux/test_basic_helm_chart.py::TestBaseChartTest::test_priority_classes
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> - requests.exceptions.HTTPError: 429 Client Error: Too Many
> > > >>>>> Requests
> > > >>>>>>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> url:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/yannh/kubernetes-json-schema/master/v1.29.1-standalone-strict/priorityclass-scheduling-v1.json
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 at 18:29, Jarek Potiuk <
> jarek@potiuk.com
> > >
> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 1:46 PM Elad Kalif <
> > > >>>>> eladkal@apache.org>
> > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for that Jarek!
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I find the lack of ability to merge PRs fast very
> limiting
> > > >>>>> but
> > > >>>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> might
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> just something to get used to.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed. I also see it, but also I got a few manually
> pushed
> > > >>>>> "must
> > > >>>>>>>>> fix
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> quickly" to gitbox, and actually I find it really nice -
> > > >>>>> because
> > > >>>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> still possible, but it require some extra effort and
> > > >>>>> deliberate
> > > >>>>>> "ok
> > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> one really should be pushed to unblock everyone" - as long
> > > >> as
> > > >>>>> we
> > > >>>>>> all
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (especially those people that are active in the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> #internal-airfow-ci-cd channel) know how to do it and can
> > > >> fix
> > > >>>>>> things
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> quickly, this is actually a nice way to make it into
> > > >>>>> "exceptional"
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> workflow
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - which will push us more in making sure airflow main is
> > > >>>>> really
> > > >>>>>>>>> "green"
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> -
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> which ultimately is our goal to make it as green as
> possible
> > > >>>>> all
> > > >>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> time.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> What **might help with that** (and also keeping the
> "enable
> > > >>>>> auto
> > > >>>>>>>>> merge"
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> might motivate it more to) is to:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * speed up the builds - we MUST prioritise now ARC (K8S
> > > >>>>>> self-hosted
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> runners) to make our builds simply faster - I started a
> > > >>>>> discussion
> > > >>>>>>>>> and a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> small group of people who can work together to complete it
> > > >>>>> after
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hussein's
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> POC)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * speed up the image release - with ARM runners (which we
> > > >>>>> might be
> > > >>>>>>>>> able
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> do independently as recently I think we have
> > > >>>>> hypervisor-enabled
> > > >>>>>> ARM
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> images
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> available as public runners as github made it generally
> > > >>>>>> available).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * speed up the doc builds for airflow-site - we (mainly
> > > >>>>> Pavan) are
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> close to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> complete offloading of the historical release docs to S3
> > > >> and I
> > > >>>>>> hope
> > > >>>>>>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cut down a lot on doc publishing workflows.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> J,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>