You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@airflow.apache.org by Elad Kalif <el...@apache.org> on 2024/11/03 08:31:45 UTC
[VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on November 03, 2024
Hey all,
I have just cut rc3 Airflow Providers packages. This email is calling a
vote on the release,
which will last for 24 hours - which means that it will end on November 06,
2024 08:30 AM UTC and until 3 binding +1 votes have been received.
Consider this my (binding) +1.
Airflow Providers are available at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/airflow/providers/
*apache-airflow-providers-<PROVIDER>-*.tar.gz* are the binary
Python "sdist" release - they are also official "sources" for the provider
packages.
*apache_airflow_providers_<PROVIDER>-*.whl are the binary
Python "wheel" release.
The test procedure for PMC members is described in
https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/dev/README_RELEASE_PROVIDER_PACKAGES.md#verify-the-release-candidate-by-pmc-members
The test procedure for and Contributors who would like to test this RC is
described in:
https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/dev/README_RELEASE_PROVIDER_PACKAGES.md#verify-the-release-candidate-by-contributors
Public keys are available at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/airflow/KEYS
Please vote accordingly:
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove with the reason
Only votes from PMC members are binding, but members of the community are
encouraged to test the release and vote with "(non-binding)".
Please note that the version number excludes the 'rcX' string.
This will allow us to rename the artifact without modifying
the artifact checksums when we actually release.
The status of testing the providers by the community is kept here:
https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/43615
The issue is also the easiest way to see important PRs included in the RC
candidates.
Detailed changelog for the providers will be published in the documentation
after the
RC candidates are released.
You can find the RC packages in PyPI following these links:
https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-providers-amazon/9.1.0rc3/
https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-providers-fab/1.5.0rc3/
Cheers,
Elad Kalif
Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on November 03, 2024
Posted by Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>.
OK. Mystery solved: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/43683 -> should
bring back full reproducibility to provider package preparation.
On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 8:51 AM Elad Kalif <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> I will remove amazon provider from this release
>
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 11:10 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
>
> > It's still a mystery why there is the 2.3 instead of 2.1 metadata in
> Elad's
> > package, but we can sort it out after we release.
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on November 03, 2024
Posted by Elad Kalif <el...@apache.org>.
I will remove amazon provider from this release
On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 11:10 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> It's still a mystery why there is the 2.3 instead of 2.1 metadata in Elad's
> package, but we can sort it out after we release.
>
Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on November 03, 2024
Posted by Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>.
It's still a mystery why there is the 2.3 instead of 2.1 metadata in Elad's
package, but we can sort it out after we release.
Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on November 03, 2024
Posted by Jens Scheffler <j_...@gmx.de.INVALID>.
Thanks @Jarek for the hind and... SORRY. MY FAULT. I had a hard-coded
"rc1" in my script but this was rc3 *facepalm*.
With the right RC3 checked the diff is down to:
(.venv39) jscheffl@hp860g9:~/temp/__airflow/4$ diff -r asf local
diff -r asf/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/PKG-INFO
local/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/PKG-INFO
1c1
< Metadata-Version: 2.1
---
> Metadata-Version: 2.3
30c30
< Requires-Dist: apache-airflow-providers-common-compat ; extra ==
"common.compat"
---
> Requires-Dist: apache-airflow-providers-common-compat ; extra ==
"common-compat"
39c39
< Provides-Extra: common.compat
---
> Provides-Extra: common-compat
So with this minimal diff I'd join-in +1 (binding) for FAB to un-block
release of 2.10.3
Jens
On 04.11.24 21:32, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> I think you have not updated to latest version of svn (or maybe your
> extracted "asf" dir contains the version that was prepared for rc1 (not
> even rc2) - because it does not contain the changes merged 5 days ago via
> this PR: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/43076
>
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 9:18 PM Jens Scheffler <j_...@gmx.de.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi @Jarek, @Elad,
>>
>> okay, in my re-producibility checks I see more than just meta data
>> changes - I re-re-produced the packages and still the diff is the same:
>>
>>
>> (airflow) jscheffl@hp860g9:~/temp/__airflow/2$ diff -r asf local
>> diff -r
>>
>> asf/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/airflow/providers/fab/auth_manager/fab_auth_manager.py
>>
>> local/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/airflow/providers/fab/auth_manager/fab_auth_manager.py
>> 21d20
>> < import warnings
>> 50c49
>> < from airflow.exceptions import AirflowConfigException,
>> AirflowException, AirflowProviderDeprecationWarning
>> ---
>> > from airflow.exceptions import AirflowConfigException, AirflowException
>> 274,283d272
>> <
>> < def is_authorized_dataset(
>> < self, *, method: ResourceMethod, details: AssetDetails | None
>> = None, user: BaseUser | None = None
>> < ) -> bool:
>> < warnings.warn(
>> < "is_authorized_dataset will be renamed as
>> is_authorized_asset in Airflow 3 and will be removed when the minimum
>> Airflow version is set to 3.0 for the fab provider",
>> < AirflowProviderDeprecationWarning,
>> < stacklevel=2,
>> < )
>> < return self.is_authorized_asset(method=method, user=user)
>> diff -r
>>
>> asf/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/airflow/providers/fab/auth_manager/security_manager/override.py
>>
>> local/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/airflow/providers/fab/auth_manager/security_manager/override.py
>> 20d19
>> < import copy
>> 28c27
>> < from typing import TYPE_CHECKING, Any, Callable, Collection,
>> Container, Iterable, Mapping, Sequence
>> ---
>> > from typing import TYPE_CHECKING, Any, Callable, Collection,
>> Container, Iterable, Sequence
>> 1111c1110
>> < access_control: Mapping[str, Mapping[str, Collection[str]] |
>> Collection[str]] | None = None,
>> ---
>> > access_control: dict[str, dict[str, Collection[str]] |
>> Collection[str]] | None = None,
>> 1132c1131
>> < self._sync_dag_view_permissions(dag_id,
>> copy.copy(access_control))
>> ---
>> > self._sync_dag_view_permissions(dag_id,
>> access_control.copy())
>> 1153c1152
>> < access_control: Mapping[str, Mapping[str, Collection[str]] |
>> Collection[str]],
>> ---
>> > access_control: dict[str, dict[str, Collection[str]] |
>> Collection[str]],
>> diff -r
>>
>> asf/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/airflow/providers/fab/migrations/env.py
>>
>> local/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/airflow/providers/fab/migrations/env.py
>> 20d19
>> < from logging import getLogger
>> 36c35
>> < if not getLogger().handlers and config.config_file_name:
>> ---
>> > if config.config_file_name is not None:
>> diff -r asf/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/PKG-INFO
>> local/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/PKG-INFO
>> 1c1
>> < Metadata-Version: 2.1
>> ---
>> > Metadata-Version: 2.3
>> 30c30
>> < Requires-Dist: apache-airflow-providers-common-compat ; extra ==
>> "common.compat"
>> ---
>> > Requires-Dist: apache-airflow-providers-common-compat ; extra ==
>> "common-compat"
>> 39c39
>> < Provides-Extra: common.compat
>> ---
>> > Provides-Extra: common-compat
>> diff -r asf/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/pyproject.toml
>> local/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/pyproject.toml
>> 26c26
>> < requires = ["flit_core==3.10.0"]
>> ---
>> > requires = ["flit_core >=3.2,<4"]
>>
>>
>>
>> On 04.11.24 20:48, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
>>> Those are the diffs I see (look like meta-data) only:
>>> https://ibb.co/xgjDYVR
>>>
>>> And it's clear that flit 3.9.0 was used - not the pinned 3.10.0 to
>> generate
>>> the package. It somehow looks like rc2 was not replaced with rc3
>> generated
>>> with the new tag.
>>> Do you see other differences Jens (BTW. `diffoscope` is a fantastic tool
>>> for comparing packages etc) - I have not checked other packages - only
>> the
>>> FAB ones, maybe there are other differences.
>>>
>>> J.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 8:21 PM Hussein Awala <hu...@awala.fr> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 (binding) checked signatures, checksums and licences.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 8:13 PM Jens Scheffler
>> <j_...@gmx.de.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 for reproducibility issue. I can also confirm that only minor diff
>> is
>>>>> in - but not only meta data - I see also code differences in fab
>>>>> provider. So I am not toally conviced.
>>>>>
>>>>> So my test results are:
>>>>>
>>>>> +0 (binding) - Checked SVN, Check in Docker, Licenses, Signatures
>>>>>
>>>>> Reproducible package build tested but test failedfor both fab and
>> amazon
>>>>> On 04.11.24 19:14, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
>>>>>> I still see the same reproducibility issue that should have been
>>>> handled
>>>>> by
>>>>>> pinning flit. I am not sure now why it did not work again, it might
>>>> need
>>>>> a
>>>>>> bit of investigation. But I manually compared the differences and
>>>>>> the differences are only in metadata, so even if the reproducibility
>>>>> check
>>>>>> does not pass, it's not a "hard" condition. Licences, checksum,
>>>>> signatures
>>>>>> work. I do not want this to hold the 2.10.3 Airflow release.
>>>>>> The amazon provider needs common.compat provider as well for some
>> cases
>>>>> as
>>>>>> noted by Pavan in
>>>>>>
>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/43615#issuecomment-2453500628
>>>>> - it
>>>>>> will need common.compat provider release as well for some, and since
>>>> this
>>>>>> one is not blocking, then I think we should make next rc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 for FAB provider
>>>>>> -1 for amazon provider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We should closely look and do the next release together with Elad to
>>>>>> address the reproducibility issue, though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> J.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 12:46 PM Wei Lee <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 non-binding. Tested my changes
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Wei
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 2024, at 4:34 PM, Elad Kalif <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Correction vote will end on November 04, 2024 08:30 AM UTC and until
>>>> 3
>>>>>>>> binding +1 votes have been received.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 3, 2024 at 10:31 AM Elad Kalif <el...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hey all,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have just cut rc3 Airflow Providers packages. This email is
>>>> calling
>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> vote on the release,
>>>>>>>>> which will last for 24 hours - which means that it will end on
>>>>> November
>>>>>>>>> 06, 2024 08:30 AM UTC and until 3 binding +1 votes have been
>>>> received.
>>>>>>>>> Consider this my (binding) +1.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Airflow Providers are available at:
>>>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/airflow/providers/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *apache-airflow-providers-<PROVIDER>-*.tar.gz* are the binary
>>>>>>>>> Python "sdist" release - they are also official "sources" for the
>>>>>>>>> provider packages.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *apache_airflow_providers_<PROVIDER>-*.whl are the binary
>>>>>>>>> Python "wheel" release.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The test procedure for PMC members is described in
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/dev/README_RELEASE_PROVIDER_PACKAGES.md#verify-the-release-candidate-by-pmc-members
>>>>>>>>> The test procedure for and Contributors who would like to test this
>>>> RC
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> described in:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/dev/README_RELEASE_PROVIDER_PACKAGES.md#verify-the-release-candidate-by-contributors
>>>>>>>>> Public keys are available at:
>>>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/airflow/KEYS
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please vote accordingly:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [ ] +1 approve
>>>>>>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>>>>>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove with the reason
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Only votes from PMC members are binding, but members of the
>>>> community
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> encouraged to test the release and vote with "(non-binding)".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please note that the version number excludes the 'rcX' string.
>>>>>>>>> This will allow us to rename the artifact without modifying
>>>>>>>>> the artifact checksums when we actually release.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The status of testing the providers by the community is kept here:
>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/43615
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The issue is also the easiest way to see important PRs included in
>>>> the
>>>>>>> RC
>>>>>>>>> candidates.
>>>>>>>>> Detailed changelog for the providers will be published in the
>>>>>>>>> documentation after the
>>>>>>>>> RC candidates are released.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can find the RC packages in PyPI following these links:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-providers-amazon/9.1.0rc3/
>>>>>>>>> https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-providers-fab/1.5.0rc3/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> Elad Kalif
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on November 03, 2024
Posted by Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>.
I think you have not updated to latest version of svn (or maybe your
extracted "asf" dir contains the version that was prepared for rc1 (not
even rc2) - because it does not contain the changes merged 5 days ago via
this PR: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/43076
On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 9:18 PM Jens Scheffler <j_...@gmx.de.invalid>
wrote:
> Hi @Jarek, @Elad,
>
> okay, in my re-producibility checks I see more than just meta data
> changes - I re-re-produced the packages and still the diff is the same:
>
>
> (airflow) jscheffl@hp860g9:~/temp/__airflow/2$ diff -r asf local
> diff -r
>
> asf/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/airflow/providers/fab/auth_manager/fab_auth_manager.py
>
> local/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/airflow/providers/fab/auth_manager/fab_auth_manager.py
> 21d20
> < import warnings
> 50c49
> < from airflow.exceptions import AirflowConfigException,
> AirflowException, AirflowProviderDeprecationWarning
> ---
> > from airflow.exceptions import AirflowConfigException, AirflowException
> 274,283d272
> <
> < def is_authorized_dataset(
> < self, *, method: ResourceMethod, details: AssetDetails | None
> = None, user: BaseUser | None = None
> < ) -> bool:
> < warnings.warn(
> < "is_authorized_dataset will be renamed as
> is_authorized_asset in Airflow 3 and will be removed when the minimum
> Airflow version is set to 3.0 for the fab provider",
> < AirflowProviderDeprecationWarning,
> < stacklevel=2,
> < )
> < return self.is_authorized_asset(method=method, user=user)
> diff -r
>
> asf/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/airflow/providers/fab/auth_manager/security_manager/override.py
>
> local/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/airflow/providers/fab/auth_manager/security_manager/override.py
> 20d19
> < import copy
> 28c27
> < from typing import TYPE_CHECKING, Any, Callable, Collection,
> Container, Iterable, Mapping, Sequence
> ---
> > from typing import TYPE_CHECKING, Any, Callable, Collection,
> Container, Iterable, Sequence
> 1111c1110
> < access_control: Mapping[str, Mapping[str, Collection[str]] |
> Collection[str]] | None = None,
> ---
> > access_control: dict[str, dict[str, Collection[str]] |
> Collection[str]] | None = None,
> 1132c1131
> < self._sync_dag_view_permissions(dag_id,
> copy.copy(access_control))
> ---
> > self._sync_dag_view_permissions(dag_id,
> access_control.copy())
> 1153c1152
> < access_control: Mapping[str, Mapping[str, Collection[str]] |
> Collection[str]],
> ---
> > access_control: dict[str, dict[str, Collection[str]] |
> Collection[str]],
> diff -r
>
> asf/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/airflow/providers/fab/migrations/env.py
>
> local/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/airflow/providers/fab/migrations/env.py
> 20d19
> < from logging import getLogger
> 36c35
> < if not getLogger().handlers and config.config_file_name:
> ---
> > if config.config_file_name is not None:
> diff -r asf/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/PKG-INFO
> local/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/PKG-INFO
> 1c1
> < Metadata-Version: 2.1
> ---
> > Metadata-Version: 2.3
> 30c30
> < Requires-Dist: apache-airflow-providers-common-compat ; extra ==
> "common.compat"
> ---
> > Requires-Dist: apache-airflow-providers-common-compat ; extra ==
> "common-compat"
> 39c39
> < Provides-Extra: common.compat
> ---
> > Provides-Extra: common-compat
> diff -r asf/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/pyproject.toml
> local/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/pyproject.toml
> 26c26
> < requires = ["flit_core==3.10.0"]
> ---
> > requires = ["flit_core >=3.2,<4"]
>
>
>
> On 04.11.24 20:48, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> > Those are the diffs I see (look like meta-data) only:
> > https://ibb.co/xgjDYVR
> >
> > And it's clear that flit 3.9.0 was used - not the pinned 3.10.0 to
> generate
> > the package. It somehow looks like rc2 was not replaced with rc3
> generated
> > with the new tag.
> > Do you see other differences Jens (BTW. `diffoscope` is a fantastic tool
> > for comparing packages etc) - I have not checked other packages - only
> the
> > FAB ones, maybe there are other differences.
> >
> > J.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 8:21 PM Hussein Awala <hu...@awala.fr> wrote:
> >
> >> +1 (binding) checked signatures, checksums and licences.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 8:13 PM Jens Scheffler
> <j_...@gmx.de.invalid>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> +1 for reproducibility issue. I can also confirm that only minor diff
> is
> >>> in - but not only meta data - I see also code differences in fab
> >>> provider. So I am not toally conviced.
> >>>
> >>> So my test results are:
> >>>
> >>> +0 (binding) - Checked SVN, Check in Docker, Licenses, Signatures
> >>>
> >>> Reproducible package build tested but test failedfor both fab and
> amazon
> >>>
> >>> On 04.11.24 19:14, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> >>>> I still see the same reproducibility issue that should have been
> >> handled
> >>> by
> >>>> pinning flit. I am not sure now why it did not work again, it might
> >> need
> >>> a
> >>>> bit of investigation. But I manually compared the differences and
> >>>> the differences are only in metadata, so even if the reproducibility
> >>> check
> >>>> does not pass, it's not a "hard" condition. Licences, checksum,
> >>> signatures
> >>>> work. I do not want this to hold the 2.10.3 Airflow release.
> >>>> The amazon provider needs common.compat provider as well for some
> cases
> >>> as
> >>>> noted by Pavan in
> >>>>
> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/43615#issuecomment-2453500628
> >>> - it
> >>>> will need common.compat provider release as well for some, and since
> >> this
> >>>> one is not blocking, then I think we should make next rc.
> >>>>
> >>>> So:
> >>>>
> >>>> +1 for FAB provider
> >>>> -1 for amazon provider.
> >>>>
> >>>> We should closely look and do the next release together with Elad to
> >>>> address the reproducibility issue, though.
> >>>>
> >>>> J.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 12:46 PM Wei Lee <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1 non-binding. Tested my changes
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best,
> >>>>> Wei
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Nov 3, 2024, at 4:34 PM, Elad Kalif <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Correction vote will end on November 04, 2024 08:30 AM UTC and until
> >> 3
> >>>>>> binding +1 votes have been received.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sun, Nov 3, 2024 at 10:31 AM Elad Kalif <el...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hey all,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I have just cut rc3 Airflow Providers packages. This email is
> >> calling
> >>> a
> >>>>>>> vote on the release,
> >>>>>>> which will last for 24 hours - which means that it will end on
> >>> November
> >>>>>>> 06, 2024 08:30 AM UTC and until 3 binding +1 votes have been
> >> received.
> >>>>>>> Consider this my (binding) +1.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Airflow Providers are available at:
> >>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/airflow/providers/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> *apache-airflow-providers-<PROVIDER>-*.tar.gz* are the binary
> >>>>>>> Python "sdist" release - they are also official "sources" for the
> >>>>>>> provider packages.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> *apache_airflow_providers_<PROVIDER>-*.whl are the binary
> >>>>>>> Python "wheel" release.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The test procedure for PMC members is described in
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/dev/README_RELEASE_PROVIDER_PACKAGES.md#verify-the-release-candidate-by-pmc-members
> >>>>>>> The test procedure for and Contributors who would like to test this
> >> RC
> >>>>> is
> >>>>>>> described in:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/dev/README_RELEASE_PROVIDER_PACKAGES.md#verify-the-release-candidate-by-contributors
> >>>>>>> Public keys are available at:
> >>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/airflow/KEYS
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Please vote accordingly:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> [ ] +1 approve
> >>>>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
> >>>>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove with the reason
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Only votes from PMC members are binding, but members of the
> >> community
> >>>>> are
> >>>>>>> encouraged to test the release and vote with "(non-binding)".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Please note that the version number excludes the 'rcX' string.
> >>>>>>> This will allow us to rename the artifact without modifying
> >>>>>>> the artifact checksums when we actually release.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The status of testing the providers by the community is kept here:
> >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/43615
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The issue is also the easiest way to see important PRs included in
> >> the
> >>>>> RC
> >>>>>>> candidates.
> >>>>>>> Detailed changelog for the providers will be published in the
> >>>>>>> documentation after the
> >>>>>>> RC candidates are released.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You can find the RC packages in PyPI following these links:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-providers-amazon/9.1.0rc3/
> >>>>>>> https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-providers-fab/1.5.0rc3/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>> Elad Kalif
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
> >>>
> >>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on November 03, 2024
Posted by Jens Scheffler <j_...@gmx.de.INVALID>.
Hi @Jarek, @Elad,
okay, in my re-producibility checks I see more than just meta data
changes - I re-re-produced the packages and still the diff is the same:
(airflow) jscheffl@hp860g9:~/temp/__airflow/2$ diff -r asf local
diff -r
asf/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/airflow/providers/fab/auth_manager/fab_auth_manager.py
local/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/airflow/providers/fab/auth_manager/fab_auth_manager.py
21d20
< import warnings
50c49
< from airflow.exceptions import AirflowConfigException,
AirflowException, AirflowProviderDeprecationWarning
---
> from airflow.exceptions import AirflowConfigException, AirflowException
274,283d272
<
< def is_authorized_dataset(
< self, *, method: ResourceMethod, details: AssetDetails | None
= None, user: BaseUser | None = None
< ) -> bool:
< warnings.warn(
< "is_authorized_dataset will be renamed as
is_authorized_asset in Airflow 3 and will be removed when the minimum
Airflow version is set to 3.0 for the fab provider",
< AirflowProviderDeprecationWarning,
< stacklevel=2,
< )
< return self.is_authorized_asset(method=method, user=user)
diff -r
asf/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/airflow/providers/fab/auth_manager/security_manager/override.py
local/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/airflow/providers/fab/auth_manager/security_manager/override.py
20d19
< import copy
28c27
< from typing import TYPE_CHECKING, Any, Callable, Collection,
Container, Iterable, Mapping, Sequence
---
> from typing import TYPE_CHECKING, Any, Callable, Collection,
Container, Iterable, Sequence
1111c1110
< access_control: Mapping[str, Mapping[str, Collection[str]] |
Collection[str]] | None = None,
---
> access_control: dict[str, dict[str, Collection[str]] |
Collection[str]] | None = None,
1132c1131
< self._sync_dag_view_permissions(dag_id,
copy.copy(access_control))
---
> self._sync_dag_view_permissions(dag_id,
access_control.copy())
1153c1152
< access_control: Mapping[str, Mapping[str, Collection[str]] |
Collection[str]],
---
> access_control: dict[str, dict[str, Collection[str]] |
Collection[str]],
diff -r
asf/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/airflow/providers/fab/migrations/env.py
local/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/airflow/providers/fab/migrations/env.py
20d19
< from logging import getLogger
36c35
< if not getLogger().handlers and config.config_file_name:
---
> if config.config_file_name is not None:
diff -r asf/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/PKG-INFO
local/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/PKG-INFO
1c1
< Metadata-Version: 2.1
---
> Metadata-Version: 2.3
30c30
< Requires-Dist: apache-airflow-providers-common-compat ; extra ==
"common.compat"
---
> Requires-Dist: apache-airflow-providers-common-compat ; extra ==
"common-compat"
39c39
< Provides-Extra: common.compat
---
> Provides-Extra: common-compat
diff -r asf/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/pyproject.toml
local/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/pyproject.toml
26c26
< requires = ["flit_core==3.10.0"]
---
> requires = ["flit_core >=3.2,<4"]
On 04.11.24 20:48, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> Those are the diffs I see (look like meta-data) only:
> https://ibb.co/xgjDYVR
>
> And it's clear that flit 3.9.0 was used - not the pinned 3.10.0 to generate
> the package. It somehow looks like rc2 was not replaced with rc3 generated
> with the new tag.
> Do you see other differences Jens (BTW. `diffoscope` is a fantastic tool
> for comparing packages etc) - I have not checked other packages - only the
> FAB ones, maybe there are other differences.
>
> J.
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 8:21 PM Hussein Awala <hu...@awala.fr> wrote:
>
>> +1 (binding) checked signatures, checksums and licences.
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 8:13 PM Jens Scheffler <j_...@gmx.de.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for reproducibility issue. I can also confirm that only minor diff is
>>> in - but not only meta data - I see also code differences in fab
>>> provider. So I am not toally conviced.
>>>
>>> So my test results are:
>>>
>>> +0 (binding) - Checked SVN, Check in Docker, Licenses, Signatures
>>>
>>> Reproducible package build tested but test failedfor both fab and amazon
>>>
>>> On 04.11.24 19:14, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
>>>> I still see the same reproducibility issue that should have been
>> handled
>>> by
>>>> pinning flit. I am not sure now why it did not work again, it might
>> need
>>> a
>>>> bit of investigation. But I manually compared the differences and
>>>> the differences are only in metadata, so even if the reproducibility
>>> check
>>>> does not pass, it's not a "hard" condition. Licences, checksum,
>>> signatures
>>>> work. I do not want this to hold the 2.10.3 Airflow release.
>>>> The amazon provider needs common.compat provider as well for some cases
>>> as
>>>> noted by Pavan in
>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/43615#issuecomment-2453500628
>>> - it
>>>> will need common.compat provider release as well for some, and since
>> this
>>>> one is not blocking, then I think we should make next rc.
>>>>
>>>> So:
>>>>
>>>> +1 for FAB provider
>>>> -1 for amazon provider.
>>>>
>>>> We should closely look and do the next release together with Elad to
>>>> address the reproducibility issue, though.
>>>>
>>>> J.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 12:46 PM Wei Lee <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 non-binding. Tested my changes
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Wei
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 3, 2024, at 4:34 PM, Elad Kalif <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Correction vote will end on November 04, 2024 08:30 AM UTC and until
>> 3
>>>>>> binding +1 votes have been received.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 3, 2024 at 10:31 AM Elad Kalif <el...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hey all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have just cut rc3 Airflow Providers packages. This email is
>> calling
>>> a
>>>>>>> vote on the release,
>>>>>>> which will last for 24 hours - which means that it will end on
>>> November
>>>>>>> 06, 2024 08:30 AM UTC and until 3 binding +1 votes have been
>> received.
>>>>>>> Consider this my (binding) +1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Airflow Providers are available at:
>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/airflow/providers/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *apache-airflow-providers-<PROVIDER>-*.tar.gz* are the binary
>>>>>>> Python "sdist" release - they are also official "sources" for the
>>>>>>> provider packages.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *apache_airflow_providers_<PROVIDER>-*.whl are the binary
>>>>>>> Python "wheel" release.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The test procedure for PMC members is described in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/dev/README_RELEASE_PROVIDER_PACKAGES.md#verify-the-release-candidate-by-pmc-members
>>>>>>> The test procedure for and Contributors who would like to test this
>> RC
>>>>> is
>>>>>>> described in:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/dev/README_RELEASE_PROVIDER_PACKAGES.md#verify-the-release-candidate-by-contributors
>>>>>>> Public keys are available at:
>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/airflow/KEYS
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please vote accordingly:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [ ] +1 approve
>>>>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>>>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove with the reason
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only votes from PMC members are binding, but members of the
>> community
>>>>> are
>>>>>>> encouraged to test the release and vote with "(non-binding)".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please note that the version number excludes the 'rcX' string.
>>>>>>> This will allow us to rename the artifact without modifying
>>>>>>> the artifact checksums when we actually release.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The status of testing the providers by the community is kept here:
>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/43615
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The issue is also the easiest way to see important PRs included in
>> the
>>>>> RC
>>>>>>> candidates.
>>>>>>> Detailed changelog for the providers will be published in the
>>>>>>> documentation after the
>>>>>>> RC candidates are released.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can find the RC packages in PyPI following these links:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-providers-amazon/9.1.0rc3/
>>>>>>> https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-providers-fab/1.5.0rc3/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Elad Kalif
>>>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
>>>
>>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on November 03, 2024
Posted by Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>.
Those are the diffs I see (look like meta-data) only:
https://ibb.co/xgjDYVR
And it's clear that flit 3.9.0 was used - not the pinned 3.10.0 to generate
the package. It somehow looks like rc2 was not replaced with rc3 generated
with the new tag.
Do you see other differences Jens (BTW. `diffoscope` is a fantastic tool
for comparing packages etc) - I have not checked other packages - only the
FAB ones, maybe there are other differences.
J.
On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 8:21 PM Hussein Awala <hu...@awala.fr> wrote:
> +1 (binding) checked signatures, checksums and licences.
>
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 8:13 PM Jens Scheffler <j_...@gmx.de.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 for reproducibility issue. I can also confirm that only minor diff is
> > in - but not only meta data - I see also code differences in fab
> > provider. So I am not toally conviced.
> >
> > So my test results are:
> >
> > +0 (binding) - Checked SVN, Check in Docker, Licenses, Signatures
> >
> > Reproducible package build tested but test failedfor both fab and amazon
> >
> > On 04.11.24 19:14, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> > > I still see the same reproducibility issue that should have been
> handled
> > by
> > > pinning flit. I am not sure now why it did not work again, it might
> need
> > a
> > > bit of investigation. But I manually compared the differences and
> > > the differences are only in metadata, so even if the reproducibility
> > check
> > > does not pass, it's not a "hard" condition. Licences, checksum,
> > signatures
> > > work. I do not want this to hold the 2.10.3 Airflow release.
> > > The amazon provider needs common.compat provider as well for some cases
> > as
> > > noted by Pavan in
> > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/43615#issuecomment-2453500628
> > - it
> > > will need common.compat provider release as well for some, and since
> this
> > > one is not blocking, then I think we should make next rc.
> > >
> > > So:
> > >
> > > +1 for FAB provider
> > > -1 for amazon provider.
> > >
> > > We should closely look and do the next release together with Elad to
> > > address the reproducibility issue, though.
> > >
> > > J.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 12:46 PM Wei Lee <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> +1 non-binding. Tested my changes
> > >>
> > >> Best,
> > >> Wei
> > >>
> > >>> On Nov 3, 2024, at 4:34 PM, Elad Kalif <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Correction vote will end on November 04, 2024 08:30 AM UTC and until
> 3
> > >>> binding +1 votes have been received.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Sun, Nov 3, 2024 at 10:31 AM Elad Kalif <el...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Hey all,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I have just cut rc3 Airflow Providers packages. This email is
> calling
> > a
> > >>>> vote on the release,
> > >>>> which will last for 24 hours - which means that it will end on
> > November
> > >>>> 06, 2024 08:30 AM UTC and until 3 binding +1 votes have been
> received.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Consider this my (binding) +1.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Airflow Providers are available at:
> > >>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/airflow/providers/
> > >>>>
> > >>>> *apache-airflow-providers-<PROVIDER>-*.tar.gz* are the binary
> > >>>> Python "sdist" release - they are also official "sources" for the
> > >>>> provider packages.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> *apache_airflow_providers_<PROVIDER>-*.whl are the binary
> > >>>> Python "wheel" release.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The test procedure for PMC members is described in
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> >
> https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/dev/README_RELEASE_PROVIDER_PACKAGES.md#verify-the-release-candidate-by-pmc-members
> > >>>> The test procedure for and Contributors who would like to test this
> RC
> > >> is
> > >>>> described in:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> >
> https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/dev/README_RELEASE_PROVIDER_PACKAGES.md#verify-the-release-candidate-by-contributors
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Public keys are available at:
> > >>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/airflow/KEYS
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Please vote accordingly:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> [ ] +1 approve
> > >>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
> > >>>> [ ] -1 disapprove with the reason
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Only votes from PMC members are binding, but members of the
> community
> > >> are
> > >>>> encouraged to test the release and vote with "(non-binding)".
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Please note that the version number excludes the 'rcX' string.
> > >>>> This will allow us to rename the artifact without modifying
> > >>>> the artifact checksums when we actually release.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The status of testing the providers by the community is kept here:
> > >>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/43615
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The issue is also the easiest way to see important PRs included in
> the
> > >> RC
> > >>>> candidates.
> > >>>> Detailed changelog for the providers will be published in the
> > >>>> documentation after the
> > >>>> RC candidates are released.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> You can find the RC packages in PyPI following these links:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-providers-amazon/9.1.0rc3/
> > >>>> https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-providers-fab/1.5.0rc3/
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Cheers,
> > >>>> Elad Kalif
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on November 03, 2024
Posted by Hussein Awala <hu...@awala.fr>.
+1 (binding) checked signatures, checksums and licences.
On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 8:13 PM Jens Scheffler <j_...@gmx.de.invalid>
wrote:
> +1 for reproducibility issue. I can also confirm that only minor diff is
> in - but not only meta data - I see also code differences in fab
> provider. So I am not toally conviced.
>
> So my test results are:
>
> +0 (binding) - Checked SVN, Check in Docker, Licenses, Signatures
>
> Reproducible package build tested but test failedfor both fab and amazon
>
> On 04.11.24 19:14, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> > I still see the same reproducibility issue that should have been handled
> by
> > pinning flit. I am not sure now why it did not work again, it might need
> a
> > bit of investigation. But I manually compared the differences and
> > the differences are only in metadata, so even if the reproducibility
> check
> > does not pass, it's not a "hard" condition. Licences, checksum,
> signatures
> > work. I do not want this to hold the 2.10.3 Airflow release.
> > The amazon provider needs common.compat provider as well for some cases
> as
> > noted by Pavan in
> > https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/43615#issuecomment-2453500628
> - it
> > will need common.compat provider release as well for some, and since this
> > one is not blocking, then I think we should make next rc.
> >
> > So:
> >
> > +1 for FAB provider
> > -1 for amazon provider.
> >
> > We should closely look and do the next release together with Elad to
> > address the reproducibility issue, though.
> >
> > J.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 12:46 PM Wei Lee <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> +1 non-binding. Tested my changes
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Wei
> >>
> >>> On Nov 3, 2024, at 4:34 PM, Elad Kalif <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Correction vote will end on November 04, 2024 08:30 AM UTC and until 3
> >>> binding +1 votes have been received.
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Nov 3, 2024 at 10:31 AM Elad Kalif <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hey all,
> >>>>
> >>>> I have just cut rc3 Airflow Providers packages. This email is calling
> a
> >>>> vote on the release,
> >>>> which will last for 24 hours - which means that it will end on
> November
> >>>> 06, 2024 08:30 AM UTC and until 3 binding +1 votes have been received.
> >>>>
> >>>> Consider this my (binding) +1.
> >>>>
> >>>> Airflow Providers are available at:
> >>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/airflow/providers/
> >>>>
> >>>> *apache-airflow-providers-<PROVIDER>-*.tar.gz* are the binary
> >>>> Python "sdist" release - they are also official "sources" for the
> >>>> provider packages.
> >>>>
> >>>> *apache_airflow_providers_<PROVIDER>-*.whl are the binary
> >>>> Python "wheel" release.
> >>>>
> >>>> The test procedure for PMC members is described in
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/dev/README_RELEASE_PROVIDER_PACKAGES.md#verify-the-release-candidate-by-pmc-members
> >>>> The test procedure for and Contributors who would like to test this RC
> >> is
> >>>> described in:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/dev/README_RELEASE_PROVIDER_PACKAGES.md#verify-the-release-candidate-by-contributors
> >>>>
> >>>> Public keys are available at:
> >>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/airflow/KEYS
> >>>>
> >>>> Please vote accordingly:
> >>>>
> >>>> [ ] +1 approve
> >>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
> >>>> [ ] -1 disapprove with the reason
> >>>>
> >>>> Only votes from PMC members are binding, but members of the community
> >> are
> >>>> encouraged to test the release and vote with "(non-binding)".
> >>>>
> >>>> Please note that the version number excludes the 'rcX' string.
> >>>> This will allow us to rename the artifact without modifying
> >>>> the artifact checksums when we actually release.
> >>>>
> >>>> The status of testing the providers by the community is kept here:
> >>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/43615
> >>>>
> >>>> The issue is also the easiest way to see important PRs included in the
> >> RC
> >>>> candidates.
> >>>> Detailed changelog for the providers will be published in the
> >>>> documentation after the
> >>>> RC candidates are released.
> >>>>
> >>>> You can find the RC packages in PyPI following these links:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-providers-amazon/9.1.0rc3/
> >>>> https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-providers-fab/1.5.0rc3/
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> Elad Kalif
> >>>>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
> >>
> >>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on November 03, 2024
Posted by Jens Scheffler <j_...@gmx.de.INVALID>.
+1 for reproducibility issue. I can also confirm that only minor diff is
in - but not only meta data - I see also code differences in fab
provider. So I am not toally conviced.
So my test results are:
+0 (binding) - Checked SVN, Check in Docker, Licenses, Signatures
Reproducible package build tested but test failedfor both fab and amazon
On 04.11.24 19:14, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> I still see the same reproducibility issue that should have been handled by
> pinning flit. I am not sure now why it did not work again, it might need a
> bit of investigation. But I manually compared the differences and
> the differences are only in metadata, so even if the reproducibility check
> does not pass, it's not a "hard" condition. Licences, checksum, signatures
> work. I do not want this to hold the 2.10.3 Airflow release.
> The amazon provider needs common.compat provider as well for some cases as
> noted by Pavan in
> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/43615#issuecomment-2453500628 - it
> will need common.compat provider release as well for some, and since this
> one is not blocking, then I think we should make next rc.
>
> So:
>
> +1 for FAB provider
> -1 for amazon provider.
>
> We should closely look and do the next release together with Elad to
> address the reproducibility issue, though.
>
> J.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 12:46 PM Wei Lee <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 non-binding. Tested my changes
>>
>> Best,
>> Wei
>>
>>> On Nov 3, 2024, at 4:34 PM, Elad Kalif <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Correction vote will end on November 04, 2024 08:30 AM UTC and until 3
>>> binding +1 votes have been received.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 3, 2024 at 10:31 AM Elad Kalif <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey all,
>>>>
>>>> I have just cut rc3 Airflow Providers packages. This email is calling a
>>>> vote on the release,
>>>> which will last for 24 hours - which means that it will end on November
>>>> 06, 2024 08:30 AM UTC and until 3 binding +1 votes have been received.
>>>>
>>>> Consider this my (binding) +1.
>>>>
>>>> Airflow Providers are available at:
>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/airflow/providers/
>>>>
>>>> *apache-airflow-providers-<PROVIDER>-*.tar.gz* are the binary
>>>> Python "sdist" release - they are also official "sources" for the
>>>> provider packages.
>>>>
>>>> *apache_airflow_providers_<PROVIDER>-*.whl are the binary
>>>> Python "wheel" release.
>>>>
>>>> The test procedure for PMC members is described in
>>>>
>>>>
>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/dev/README_RELEASE_PROVIDER_PACKAGES.md#verify-the-release-candidate-by-pmc-members
>>>> The test procedure for and Contributors who would like to test this RC
>> is
>>>> described in:
>>>>
>>>>
>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/dev/README_RELEASE_PROVIDER_PACKAGES.md#verify-the-release-candidate-by-contributors
>>>>
>>>> Public keys are available at:
>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/airflow/KEYS
>>>>
>>>> Please vote accordingly:
>>>>
>>>> [ ] +1 approve
>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove with the reason
>>>>
>>>> Only votes from PMC members are binding, but members of the community
>> are
>>>> encouraged to test the release and vote with "(non-binding)".
>>>>
>>>> Please note that the version number excludes the 'rcX' string.
>>>> This will allow us to rename the artifact without modifying
>>>> the artifact checksums when we actually release.
>>>>
>>>> The status of testing the providers by the community is kept here:
>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/43615
>>>>
>>>> The issue is also the easiest way to see important PRs included in the
>> RC
>>>> candidates.
>>>> Detailed changelog for the providers will be published in the
>>>> documentation after the
>>>> RC candidates are released.
>>>>
>>>> You can find the RC packages in PyPI following these links:
>>>>
>>>> https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-providers-amazon/9.1.0rc3/
>>>> https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-providers-fab/1.5.0rc3/
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Elad Kalif
>>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on November 03, 2024
Posted by Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>.
I still see the same reproducibility issue that should have been handled by
pinning flit. I am not sure now why it did not work again, it might need a
bit of investigation. But I manually compared the differences and
the differences are only in metadata, so even if the reproducibility check
does not pass, it's not a "hard" condition. Licences, checksum, signatures
work. I do not want this to hold the 2.10.3 Airflow release.
The amazon provider needs common.compat provider as well for some cases as
noted by Pavan in
https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/43615#issuecomment-2453500628 - it
will need common.compat provider release as well for some, and since this
one is not blocking, then I think we should make next rc.
So:
+1 for FAB provider
-1 for amazon provider.
We should closely look and do the next release together with Elad to
address the reproducibility issue, though.
J.
On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 12:46 PM Wei Lee <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 non-binding. Tested my changes
>
> Best,
> Wei
>
> > On Nov 3, 2024, at 4:34 PM, Elad Kalif <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Correction vote will end on November 04, 2024 08:30 AM UTC and until 3
> > binding +1 votes have been received.
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 3, 2024 at 10:31 AM Elad Kalif <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Hey all,
> >>
> >> I have just cut rc3 Airflow Providers packages. This email is calling a
> >> vote on the release,
> >> which will last for 24 hours - which means that it will end on November
> >> 06, 2024 08:30 AM UTC and until 3 binding +1 votes have been received.
> >>
> >> Consider this my (binding) +1.
> >>
> >> Airflow Providers are available at:
> >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/airflow/providers/
> >>
> >> *apache-airflow-providers-<PROVIDER>-*.tar.gz* are the binary
> >> Python "sdist" release - they are also official "sources" for the
> >> provider packages.
> >>
> >> *apache_airflow_providers_<PROVIDER>-*.whl are the binary
> >> Python "wheel" release.
> >>
> >> The test procedure for PMC members is described in
> >>
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/dev/README_RELEASE_PROVIDER_PACKAGES.md#verify-the-release-candidate-by-pmc-members
> >>
> >> The test procedure for and Contributors who would like to test this RC
> is
> >> described in:
> >>
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/dev/README_RELEASE_PROVIDER_PACKAGES.md#verify-the-release-candidate-by-contributors
> >>
> >>
> >> Public keys are available at:
> >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/airflow/KEYS
> >>
> >> Please vote accordingly:
> >>
> >> [ ] +1 approve
> >> [ ] +0 no opinion
> >> [ ] -1 disapprove with the reason
> >>
> >> Only votes from PMC members are binding, but members of the community
> are
> >> encouraged to test the release and vote with "(non-binding)".
> >>
> >> Please note that the version number excludes the 'rcX' string.
> >> This will allow us to rename the artifact without modifying
> >> the artifact checksums when we actually release.
> >>
> >> The status of testing the providers by the community is kept here:
> >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/43615
> >>
> >> The issue is also the easiest way to see important PRs included in the
> RC
> >> candidates.
> >> Detailed changelog for the providers will be published in the
> >> documentation after the
> >> RC candidates are released.
> >>
> >> You can find the RC packages in PyPI following these links:
> >>
> >> https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-providers-amazon/9.1.0rc3/
> >> https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-providers-fab/1.5.0rc3/
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Elad Kalif
> >>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on November 03, 2024
Posted by Wei Lee <we...@gmail.com>.
+1 non-binding. Tested my changes
Best,
Wei
> On Nov 3, 2024, at 4:34 PM, Elad Kalif <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Correction vote will end on November 04, 2024 08:30 AM UTC and until 3
> binding +1 votes have been received.
>
> On Sun, Nov 3, 2024 at 10:31 AM Elad Kalif <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> I have just cut rc3 Airflow Providers packages. This email is calling a
>> vote on the release,
>> which will last for 24 hours - which means that it will end on November
>> 06, 2024 08:30 AM UTC and until 3 binding +1 votes have been received.
>>
>> Consider this my (binding) +1.
>>
>> Airflow Providers are available at:
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/airflow/providers/
>>
>> *apache-airflow-providers-<PROVIDER>-*.tar.gz* are the binary
>> Python "sdist" release - they are also official "sources" for the
>> provider packages.
>>
>> *apache_airflow_providers_<PROVIDER>-*.whl are the binary
>> Python "wheel" release.
>>
>> The test procedure for PMC members is described in
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/dev/README_RELEASE_PROVIDER_PACKAGES.md#verify-the-release-candidate-by-pmc-members
>>
>> The test procedure for and Contributors who would like to test this RC is
>> described in:
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/dev/README_RELEASE_PROVIDER_PACKAGES.md#verify-the-release-candidate-by-contributors
>>
>>
>> Public keys are available at:
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/airflow/KEYS
>>
>> Please vote accordingly:
>>
>> [ ] +1 approve
>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>> [ ] -1 disapprove with the reason
>>
>> Only votes from PMC members are binding, but members of the community are
>> encouraged to test the release and vote with "(non-binding)".
>>
>> Please note that the version number excludes the 'rcX' string.
>> This will allow us to rename the artifact without modifying
>> the artifact checksums when we actually release.
>>
>> The status of testing the providers by the community is kept here:
>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/43615
>>
>> The issue is also the easiest way to see important PRs included in the RC
>> candidates.
>> Detailed changelog for the providers will be published in the
>> documentation after the
>> RC candidates are released.
>>
>> You can find the RC packages in PyPI following these links:
>>
>> https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-providers-amazon/9.1.0rc3/
>> https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-providers-fab/1.5.0rc3/
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Elad Kalif
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on November 03, 2024
Posted by Elad Kalif <el...@apache.org>.
Correction vote will end on November 04, 2024 08:30 AM UTC and until 3
binding +1 votes have been received.
On Sun, Nov 3, 2024 at 10:31 AM Elad Kalif <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I have just cut rc3 Airflow Providers packages. This email is calling a
> vote on the release,
> which will last for 24 hours - which means that it will end on November
> 06, 2024 08:30 AM UTC and until 3 binding +1 votes have been received.
>
> Consider this my (binding) +1.
>
> Airflow Providers are available at:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/airflow/providers/
>
> *apache-airflow-providers-<PROVIDER>-*.tar.gz* are the binary
> Python "sdist" release - they are also official "sources" for the
> provider packages.
>
> *apache_airflow_providers_<PROVIDER>-*.whl are the binary
> Python "wheel" release.
>
> The test procedure for PMC members is described in
>
> https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/dev/README_RELEASE_PROVIDER_PACKAGES.md#verify-the-release-candidate-by-pmc-members
>
> The test procedure for and Contributors who would like to test this RC is
> described in:
>
> https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/dev/README_RELEASE_PROVIDER_PACKAGES.md#verify-the-release-candidate-by-contributors
>
>
> Public keys are available at:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/airflow/KEYS
>
> Please vote accordingly:
>
> [ ] +1 approve
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove with the reason
>
> Only votes from PMC members are binding, but members of the community are
> encouraged to test the release and vote with "(non-binding)".
>
> Please note that the version number excludes the 'rcX' string.
> This will allow us to rename the artifact without modifying
> the artifact checksums when we actually release.
>
> The status of testing the providers by the community is kept here:
> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/43615
>
> The issue is also the easiest way to see important PRs included in the RC
> candidates.
> Detailed changelog for the providers will be published in the
> documentation after the
> RC candidates are released.
>
> You can find the RC packages in PyPI following these links:
>
> https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-providers-amazon/9.1.0rc3/
> https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-providers-fab/1.5.0rc3/
>
> Cheers,
> Elad Kalif
>