You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@airflow.apache.org by Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> on 2026/04/20 23:24:11 UTC
[DISCUSS] standardizing fork names for Airflow remjotes
Hello,
While preparing release documentation, I noticed that we use quite
different approaches for remote naming in various examples and tutorials.
Standardizing on those remotes would be easier for both new contributors
and agents; currently, we have some instruction on how to find the righ
remotes.
I would like to propose very simple approach:
* *upstream* -> apache/airflow
* *origin* -> your fork
We could add instructions for checking out and adding airflow to follow the
convention. This would also make our documentation more consistent and
agent-followable, reducing back-and-forth.
And renaming remotes is easy - so would be quite easy for people to switch
(other than muscle memory).
WDYT?
Re: [DISCUSS] standardizing fork names for Airflow remjotes
Posted by Aaron Chen <na...@gmail.com>.
+1 from me. `upstream` for `apache/airflow` and `origin` for personal forks
seems like a sensible convention, and it aligns with what many large open
source projects already use.
Best,
Aaron
On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 8:46 PM Pratiksha Badheka <
pratikshabadheka27@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nice point on maintaining consistency!
>
> I also use "upstream" but it is possible that some contributors may already
> have upstream pointing to a different repository in that case we might need
> to add more context to avoid any confusion .
> Looking forward to hearing from the community !
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Pratiksha badheka
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 8:26 AM Aritra Basu <ar...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm good with upstream and origin, that's what I already use. Though I
> > don't know if that additional info adds value in the docs.
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Aritra Basu
> >
> > On Tue, 21 Apr 2026, 5:19 am Jarek Potiuk, <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > I'm fine with whatever, and not trying to bikeshed, but why not use
> > > `airflow` and `origin`?
> > >
> > > Because both are technically airflow :) . Upstream is pretty
> unambiguous.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 1:31 AM Ferruzzi, Dennis <fe...@amazon.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm fine with whatever, and not trying to bikeshed, but why not use
> > > > `airflow` and `origin`?
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>
> > > > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2026 4:24 PM
> > > > To: dev@airflow.apache.org <de...@airflow.apache.org>
> > > > Subject: [EXT] [DISCUSS] standardizing fork names for Airflow
> remjotes
> > > >
> > > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do
> not
> > > > click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and
> > > know
> > > > the content is safe.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > AVERTISSEMENT: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un expéditeur
> > externe.
> > > > Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si vous ne
> > > pouvez
> > > > pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes pas
> certain
> > > que
> > > > le contenu ne présente aucun risque.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > While preparing release documentation, I noticed that we use quite
> > > > different approaches for remote naming in various examples and
> > tutorials.
> > > >
> > > > Standardizing on those remotes would be easier for both new
> > contributors
> > > > and agents; currently, we have some instruction on how to find the
> righ
> > > > remotes.
> > > >
> > > > I would like to propose very simple approach:
> > > >
> > > > * *upstream* -> apache/airflow
> > > > * *origin* -> your fork
> > > >
> > > > We could add instructions for checking out and adding airflow to
> follow
> > > the
> > > > convention. This would also make our documentation more consistent
> and
> > > > agent-followable, reducing back-and-forth.
> > > >
> > > > And renaming remotes is easy - so would be quite easy for people to
> > > switch
> > > > (other than muscle memory).
> > > >
> > > > WDYT?
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] standardizing fork names for Airflow remjotes
Posted by Pratiksha Badheka <pr...@gmail.com>.
Nice point on maintaining consistency!
I also use "upstream" but it is possible that some contributors may already
have upstream pointing to a different repository in that case we might need
to add more context to avoid any confusion .
Looking forward to hearing from the community !
Thanks & Regards,
Pratiksha badheka
On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 8:26 AM Aritra Basu <ar...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I'm good with upstream and origin, that's what I already use. Though I
> don't know if that additional info adds value in the docs.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Aritra Basu
>
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2026, 5:19 am Jarek Potiuk, <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'm fine with whatever, and not trying to bikeshed, but why not use
> > `airflow` and `origin`?
> >
> > Because both are technically airflow :) . Upstream is pretty unambiguous.
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 1:31 AM Ferruzzi, Dennis <fe...@amazon.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm fine with whatever, and not trying to bikeshed, but why not use
> > > `airflow` and `origin`?
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2026 4:24 PM
> > > To: dev@airflow.apache.org <de...@airflow.apache.org>
> > > Subject: [EXT] [DISCUSS] standardizing fork names for Airflow remjotes
> > >
> > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> > > click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and
> > know
> > > the content is safe.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > AVERTISSEMENT: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un expéditeur
> externe.
> > > Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si vous ne
> > pouvez
> > > pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes pas certain
> > que
> > > le contenu ne présente aucun risque.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > While preparing release documentation, I noticed that we use quite
> > > different approaches for remote naming in various examples and
> tutorials.
> > >
> > > Standardizing on those remotes would be easier for both new
> contributors
> > > and agents; currently, we have some instruction on how to find the righ
> > > remotes.
> > >
> > > I would like to propose very simple approach:
> > >
> > > * *upstream* -> apache/airflow
> > > * *origin* -> your fork
> > >
> > > We could add instructions for checking out and adding airflow to follow
> > the
> > > convention. This would also make our documentation more consistent and
> > > agent-followable, reducing back-and-forth.
> > >
> > > And renaming remotes is easy - so would be quite easy for people to
> > switch
> > > (other than muscle memory).
> > >
> > > WDYT?
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] standardizing fork names for Airflow remjotes
Posted by Aritra Basu <ar...@gmail.com>.
I'm good with upstream and origin, that's what I already use. Though I
don't know if that additional info adds value in the docs.
--
Regards,
Aritra Basu
On Tue, 21 Apr 2026, 5:19 am Jarek Potiuk, <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> > I'm fine with whatever, and not trying to bikeshed, but why not use
> `airflow` and `origin`?
>
> Because both are technically airflow :) . Upstream is pretty unambiguous.
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 1:31 AM Ferruzzi, Dennis <fe...@amazon.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm fine with whatever, and not trying to bikeshed, but why not use
> > `airflow` and `origin`?
> > ________________________________
> > From: Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>
> > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2026 4:24 PM
> > To: dev@airflow.apache.org <de...@airflow.apache.org>
> > Subject: [EXT] [DISCUSS] standardizing fork names for Airflow remjotes
> >
> > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> > click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and
> know
> > the content is safe.
> >
> >
> >
> > AVERTISSEMENT: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un expéditeur externe.
> > Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si vous ne
> pouvez
> > pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes pas certain
> que
> > le contenu ne présente aucun risque.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > While preparing release documentation, I noticed that we use quite
> > different approaches for remote naming in various examples and tutorials.
> >
> > Standardizing on those remotes would be easier for both new contributors
> > and agents; currently, we have some instruction on how to find the righ
> > remotes.
> >
> > I would like to propose very simple approach:
> >
> > * *upstream* -> apache/airflow
> > * *origin* -> your fork
> >
> > We could add instructions for checking out and adding airflow to follow
> the
> > convention. This would also make our documentation more consistent and
> > agent-followable, reducing back-and-forth.
> >
> > And renaming remotes is easy - so would be quite easy for people to
> switch
> > (other than muscle memory).
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] standardizing fork names for Airflow remjotes
Posted by Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>.
> I'm fine with whatever, and not trying to bikeshed, but why not use
`airflow` and `origin`?
Because both are technically airflow :) . Upstream is pretty unambiguous.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 1:31 AM Ferruzzi, Dennis <fe...@amazon.com>
wrote:
> I'm fine with whatever, and not trying to bikeshed, but why not use
> `airflow` and `origin`?
> ________________________________
> From: Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>
> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2026 4:24 PM
> To: dev@airflow.apache.org <de...@airflow.apache.org>
> Subject: [EXT] [DISCUSS] standardizing fork names for Airflow remjotes
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know
> the content is safe.
>
>
>
> AVERTISSEMENT: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un expéditeur externe.
> Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si vous ne pouvez
> pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes pas certain que
> le contenu ne présente aucun risque.
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> While preparing release documentation, I noticed that we use quite
> different approaches for remote naming in various examples and tutorials.
>
> Standardizing on those remotes would be easier for both new contributors
> and agents; currently, we have some instruction on how to find the righ
> remotes.
>
> I would like to propose very simple approach:
>
> * *upstream* -> apache/airflow
> * *origin* -> your fork
>
> We could add instructions for checking out and adding airflow to follow the
> convention. This would also make our documentation more consistent and
> agent-followable, reducing back-and-forth.
>
> And renaming remotes is easy - so would be quite easy for people to switch
> (other than muscle memory).
>
> WDYT?
>
Re: [DISCUSS] standardizing fork names for Airflow remjotes
Posted by "Ferruzzi, Dennis" <fe...@amazon.com>.
I'm fine with whatever, and not trying to bikeshed, but why not use `airflow` and `origin`?
________________________________
From: Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2026 4:24 PM
To: dev@airflow.apache.org <de...@airflow.apache.org>
Subject: [EXT] [DISCUSS] standardizing fork names for Airflow remjotes
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
AVERTISSEMENT: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un expéditeur externe. Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si vous ne pouvez pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes pas certain que le contenu ne présente aucun risque.
Hello,
While preparing release documentation, I noticed that we use quite
different approaches for remote naming in various examples and tutorials.
Standardizing on those remotes would be easier for both new contributors
and agents; currently, we have some instruction on how to find the righ
remotes.
I would like to propose very simple approach:
* *upstream* -> apache/airflow
* *origin* -> your fork
We could add instructions for checking out and adding airflow to follow the
convention. This would also make our documentation more consistent and
agent-followable, reducing back-and-forth.
And renaming remotes is easy - so would be quite easy for people to switch
(other than muscle memory).
WDYT?
Re: [DISCUSS] standardizing fork names for Airflow remjotes
Posted by Hussein Awala <hu...@awala.fr>.
Same here — I've been using "apache" for apache/airflow (and my other
Apache projects) and "origin" for my fork, but I'm fine with the proposal.
The agent argument is convincing enough, and renaming a remote is a
one-liner.
+1 on upstream/origin.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 10:53 PM Jens Scheffler <js...@apache.org> wrote:
> I am fully OK with Jareks proposals. Use it the same. (But would be okay
> with "apache" as well but the rationale with Agent is a good point!)
>
> On 21.04.26 21:32, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> > You are not on ASF mailing lists - you know nothing about bike-shedding
> :)
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 9:09 PM Ferruzzi, Dennis <fe...@amazon.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> In the end, we're all free do use whichever we prefer for our own
> >> environments and we are bikeshedding a doc change. I appreciate
> whichever
> >> you decide to standardize the docs on, Jarek.
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Vincent Beck <vi...@apache.org>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 7:31 AM
> >> To: dev@airflow.apache.org <de...@airflow.apache.org>
> >> Subject: RE: [EXT] [DISCUSS] standardizing fork names for Airflow
> remjotes
> >>
> >> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> >> click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and
> know
> >> the content is safe.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> AVERTISSEMENT: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un expéditeur
> externe.
> >> Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si vous ne
> pouvez
> >> pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes pas certain
> que
> >> le contenu ne présente aucun risque.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Makes sense to me to use upstream and origin
> >>
> >> On 2026/04/21 12:19:55 Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> >>> Good feedback :) I am glad to see it coming :).
> >>>
> >>> Just to be sure, standardizing isn't a "must"; for me it's really more
> of
> >>> avoiding ambiguities in the docs, and making manual and agentic
> >>> contributions. I am on a quest to cut every unnecessary corner of our
> >>> process to minimize time loss for individuals.
> >>>
> >>> We already had two iterations in our docs to guide agents on which
> >> remotes
> >>> to push to (mine [1] and Kaxil's [2]). Both guides would be basically
> >>> unnecessary, and I saw my agent struggling quite a bit and losing
> tokens
> >>> while figuring out what to do, so I thought it might be good if we
> >>> standardize. We also use different conventions in different parts of
> the
> >>> docs, so it an also confuse people.
> >>>
> >>> I personally used "apache" and "origin" so far, but I recently switched
> >> to
> >>> "upstream"/"origin," which made my agent's work and manual pushes
> >>> significantly easier (And I switched almost instantly).
> >>>
> >>> My proposal is to switch to "upstream" and "origin".
> >>>
> >>> For those using agents, we can add instructions for them to clean up
> the
> >>> setup if they see we do not follow the convention. The agent will then
> >>> propose a one-time migration to the new standard.
> >>>
> >>> J.
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/62575
> >>> [2] https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/62748
> >>>
> >>> J.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 11:12 AM Piyush Mudgal <
> >> pranyasharma55555@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I use upstream for apache/airflow and origin for personal forks as
> >> it's a
> >>>> pretty common github convention
> >>>>
> >>>> Best,
> >>>> Piyush
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 12:53 PM Wei Lee <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I'm also using "apache" for "apache/airflow". (but I use "upstream"
> >> for
> >>>> all
> >>>>> other projects...) Either way kinda works for me. like "apache" a bit
> >>>> more,
> >>>>> but I'm ok with "upstream".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best,
> >>>>> Wei
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Shahar Epstein <sh...@apache.org> 於 2026年4月21日週二 下午2:52寫道：
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Personally I'm used to "apache" as the upstream name, but I could
> >> live
> >>>>> with
> >>>>>> "upstream".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Shahar
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 2:24 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hello,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> While preparing release documentation, I noticed that we use
> >> quite
> >>>>>>> different approaches for remote naming in various examples and
> >>>>> tutorials.
> >>>>>>> Standardizing on those remotes would be easier for both new
> >>>>> contributors
> >>>>>>> and agents; currently, we have some instruction on how to find
> >> the
> >>>> righ
> >>>>>>> remotes.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I would like to propose very simple approach:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> * *upstream* -> apache/airflow
> >>>>>>> * *origin* -> your fork
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> We could add instructions for checking out and adding airflow to
> >>>> follow
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> convention. This would also make our documentation more
> >> consistent
> >>>> and
> >>>>>>> agent-followable, reducing back-and-forth.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And renaming remotes is easy - so would be quite easy for people
> >> to
> >>>>>> switch
> >>>>>>> (other than muscle memory).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> WDYT?
> >>>>>>>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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: [DISCUSS] standardizing fork names for Airflow remjotes
Posted by Jens Scheffler <js...@apache.org>.
I am fully OK with Jareks proposals. Use it the same. (But would be okay
with "apache" as well but the rationale with Agent is a good point!)
On 21.04.26 21:32, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> You are not on ASF mailing lists - you know nothing about bike-shedding :)
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 9:09 PM Ferruzzi, Dennis <fe...@amazon.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In the end, we're all free do use whichever we prefer for our own
>> environments and we are bikeshedding a doc change. I appreciate whichever
>> you decide to standardize the docs on, Jarek.
>> ________________________________
>> From: Vincent Beck <vi...@apache.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 7:31 AM
>> To: dev@airflow.apache.org <de...@airflow.apache.org>
>> Subject: RE: [EXT] [DISCUSS] standardizing fork names for Airflow remjotes
>>
>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
>> click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know
>> the content is safe.
>>
>>
>>
>> AVERTISSEMENT: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un expéditeur externe.
>> Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si vous ne pouvez
>> pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes pas certain que
>> le contenu ne présente aucun risque.
>>
>>
>>
>> Makes sense to me to use upstream and origin
>>
>> On 2026/04/21 12:19:55 Jarek Potiuk wrote:
>>> Good feedback :) I am glad to see it coming :).
>>>
>>> Just to be sure, standardizing isn't a "must"; for me it's really more of
>>> avoiding ambiguities in the docs, and making manual and agentic
>>> contributions. I am on a quest to cut every unnecessary corner of our
>>> process to minimize time loss for individuals.
>>>
>>> We already had two iterations in our docs to guide agents on which
>> remotes
>>> to push to (mine [1] and Kaxil's [2]). Both guides would be basically
>>> unnecessary, and I saw my agent struggling quite a bit and losing tokens
>>> while figuring out what to do, so I thought it might be good if we
>>> standardize. We also use different conventions in different parts of the
>>> docs, so it an also confuse people.
>>>
>>> I personally used "apache" and "origin" so far, but I recently switched
>> to
>>> "upstream"/"origin," which made my agent's work and manual pushes
>>> significantly easier (And I switched almost instantly).
>>>
>>> My proposal is to switch to "upstream" and "origin".
>>>
>>> For those using agents, we can add instructions for them to clean up the
>>> setup if they see we do not follow the convention. The agent will then
>>> propose a one-time migration to the new standard.
>>>
>>> J.
>>>
>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/62575
>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/62748
>>>
>>> J.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 11:12 AM Piyush Mudgal <
>> pranyasharma55555@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I use upstream for apache/airflow and origin for personal forks as
>> it's a
>>>> pretty common github convention
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Piyush
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 12:53 PM Wei Lee <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm also using "apache" for "apache/airflow". (but I use "upstream"
>> for
>>>> all
>>>>> other projects...) Either way kinda works for me. like "apache" a bit
>>>> more,
>>>>> but I'm ok with "upstream".
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Wei
>>>>>
>>>>> Shahar Epstein <sh...@apache.org> 於 2026年4月21日週二 下午2:52寫道：
>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally I'm used to "apache" as the upstream name, but I could
>> live
>>>>> with
>>>>>> "upstream".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shahar
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 2:24 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While preparing release documentation, I noticed that we use
>> quite
>>>>>>> different approaches for remote naming in various examples and
>>>>> tutorials.
>>>>>>> Standardizing on those remotes would be easier for both new
>>>>> contributors
>>>>>>> and agents; currently, we have some instruction on how to find
>> the
>>>> righ
>>>>>>> remotes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would like to propose very simple approach:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * *upstream* -> apache/airflow
>>>>>>> * *origin* -> your fork
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We could add instructions for checking out and adding airflow to
>>>> follow
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> convention. This would also make our documentation more
>> consistent
>>>> and
>>>>>>> agent-followable, reducing back-and-forth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And renaming remotes is easy - so would be quite easy for people
>> to
>>>>>> switch
>>>>>>> (other than muscle memory).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: [DISCUSS] standardizing fork names for Airflow remjotes
Posted by Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>.
Ok. Enough bikeshedding - PR here:
https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/65629
Once it's approved and merged - I will ping contributors/new contributors
etc.
J.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 11:07 PM Ferruzzi, Dennis <fe...@amazon.com>
wrote:
> I was on the Board of Directors for our local makerspace for a few
> years.... I have some idea 😋
> ________________________________
> From: Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 12:32 PM
> To: dev@airflow.apache.org <de...@airflow.apache.org>
> Subject: RE: [EXT] [DISCUSS] standardizing fork names for Airflow remjotes
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know
> the content is safe.
>
>
>
> AVERTISSEMENT: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un expéditeur externe.
> Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si vous ne pouvez
> pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes pas certain que
> le contenu ne présente aucun risque.
>
>
>
> You are not on ASF mailing lists - you know nothing about bike-shedding :)
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 9:09 PM Ferruzzi, Dennis <fe...@amazon.com>
> wrote:
>
> > In the end, we're all free do use whichever we prefer for our own
> > environments and we are bikeshedding a doc change. I appreciate
> whichever
> > you decide to standardize the docs on, Jarek.
> > ________________________________
> > From: Vincent Beck <vi...@apache.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 7:31 AM
> > To: dev@airflow.apache.org <de...@airflow.apache.org>
> > Subject: RE: [EXT] [DISCUSS] standardizing fork names for Airflow
> remjotes
> >
> > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> > click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and
> know
> > the content is safe.
> >
> >
> >
> > AVERTISSEMENT: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un expéditeur externe.
> > Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si vous ne
> pouvez
> > pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes pas certain
> que
> > le contenu ne présente aucun risque.
> >
> >
> >
> > Makes sense to me to use upstream and origin
> >
> > On 2026/04/21 12:19:55 Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> > > Good feedback :) I am glad to see it coming :).
> > >
> > > Just to be sure, standardizing isn't a "must"; for me it's really more
> of
> > > avoiding ambiguities in the docs, and making manual and agentic
> > > contributions. I am on a quest to cut every unnecessary corner of our
> > > process to minimize time loss for individuals.
> > >
> > > We already had two iterations in our docs to guide agents on which
> > remotes
> > > to push to (mine [1] and Kaxil's [2]). Both guides would be basically
> > > unnecessary, and I saw my agent struggling quite a bit and losing
> tokens
> > > while figuring out what to do, so I thought it might be good if we
> > > standardize. We also use different conventions in different parts of
> the
> > > docs, so it an also confuse people.
> > >
> > > I personally used "apache" and "origin" so far, but I recently switched
> > to
> > > "upstream"/"origin," which made my agent's work and manual pushes
> > > significantly easier (And I switched almost instantly).
> > >
> > > My proposal is to switch to "upstream" and "origin".
> > >
> > > For those using agents, we can add instructions for them to clean up
> the
> > > setup if they see we do not follow the convention. The agent will then
> > > propose a one-time migration to the new standard.
> > >
> > > J.
> > >
> > > [1] https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/62575
> > > [2] https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/62748
> > >
> > > J.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 11:12 AM Piyush Mudgal <
> > pranyasharma55555@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I use upstream for apache/airflow and origin for personal forks as
> > it's a
> > > > pretty common github convention
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Piyush
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 12:53 PM Wei Lee <we...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm also using "apache" for "apache/airflow". (but I use "upstream"
> > for
> > > > all
> > > > > other projects...) Either way kinda works for me. like "apache" a
> bit
> > > > more,
> > > > > but I'm ok with "upstream".
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Wei
> > > > >
> > > > > Shahar Epstein <sh...@apache.org> 於 2026年4月21日週二 下午2:52寫道：
> > > > >
> > > > > > Personally I'm used to "apache" as the upstream name, but I could
> > live
> > > > > with
> > > > > > "upstream".
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Shahar
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 2:24 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > While preparing release documentation, I noticed that we use
> > quite
> > > > > > > different approaches for remote naming in various examples and
> > > > > tutorials.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Standardizing on those remotes would be easier for both new
> > > > > contributors
> > > > > > > and agents; currently, we have some instruction on how to find
> > the
> > > > righ
> > > > > > > remotes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would like to propose very simple approach:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * *upstream* -> apache/airflow
> > > > > > > * *origin* -> your fork
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We could add instructions for checking out and adding airflow
> to
> > > > follow
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > convention. This would also make our documentation more
> > consistent
> > > > and
> > > > > > > agent-followable, reducing back-and-forth.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And renaming remotes is easy - so would be quite easy for
> people
> > to
> > > > > > switch
> > > > > > > (other than muscle memory).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] standardizing fork names for Airflow remjotes
Posted by "Ferruzzi, Dennis" <fe...@amazon.com>.
I was on the Board of Directors for our local makerspace for a few years.... I have some idea 😋
________________________________
From: Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 12:32 PM
To: dev@airflow.apache.org <de...@airflow.apache.org>
Subject: RE: [EXT] [DISCUSS] standardizing fork names for Airflow remjotes
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
AVERTISSEMENT: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un expéditeur externe. Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si vous ne pouvez pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes pas certain que le contenu ne présente aucun risque.
You are not on ASF mailing lists - you know nothing about bike-shedding :)
On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 9:09 PM Ferruzzi, Dennis <fe...@amazon.com>
wrote:
> In the end, we're all free do use whichever we prefer for our own
> environments and we are bikeshedding a doc change. I appreciate whichever
> you decide to standardize the docs on, Jarek.
> ________________________________
> From: Vincent Beck <vi...@apache.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 7:31 AM
> To: dev@airflow.apache.org <de...@airflow.apache.org>
> Subject: RE: [EXT] [DISCUSS] standardizing fork names for Airflow remjotes
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know
> the content is safe.
>
>
>
> AVERTISSEMENT: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un expéditeur externe.
> Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si vous ne pouvez
> pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes pas certain que
> le contenu ne présente aucun risque.
>
>
>
> Makes sense to me to use upstream and origin
>
> On 2026/04/21 12:19:55 Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> > Good feedback :) I am glad to see it coming :).
> >
> > Just to be sure, standardizing isn't a "must"; for me it's really more of
> > avoiding ambiguities in the docs, and making manual and agentic
> > contributions. I am on a quest to cut every unnecessary corner of our
> > process to minimize time loss for individuals.
> >
> > We already had two iterations in our docs to guide agents on which
> remotes
> > to push to (mine [1] and Kaxil's [2]). Both guides would be basically
> > unnecessary, and I saw my agent struggling quite a bit and losing tokens
> > while figuring out what to do, so I thought it might be good if we
> > standardize. We also use different conventions in different parts of the
> > docs, so it an also confuse people.
> >
> > I personally used "apache" and "origin" so far, but I recently switched
> to
> > "upstream"/"origin," which made my agent's work and manual pushes
> > significantly easier (And I switched almost instantly).
> >
> > My proposal is to switch to "upstream" and "origin".
> >
> > For those using agents, we can add instructions for them to clean up the
> > setup if they see we do not follow the convention. The agent will then
> > propose a one-time migration to the new standard.
> >
> > J.
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/62575
> > [2] https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/62748
> >
> > J.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 11:12 AM Piyush Mudgal <
> pranyasharma55555@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I use upstream for apache/airflow and origin for personal forks as
> it's a
> > > pretty common github convention
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Piyush
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 12:53 PM Wei Lee <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm also using "apache" for "apache/airflow". (but I use "upstream"
> for
> > > all
> > > > other projects...) Either way kinda works for me. like "apache" a bit
> > > more,
> > > > but I'm ok with "upstream".
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Wei
> > > >
> > > > Shahar Epstein <sh...@apache.org> 於 2026年4月21日週二 下午2:52寫道：
> > > >
> > > > > Personally I'm used to "apache" as the upstream name, but I could
> live
> > > > with
> > > > > "upstream".
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Shahar
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 2:24 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > While preparing release documentation, I noticed that we use
> quite
> > > > > > different approaches for remote naming in various examples and
> > > > tutorials.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Standardizing on those remotes would be easier for both new
> > > > contributors
> > > > > > and agents; currently, we have some instruction on how to find
> the
> > > righ
> > > > > > remotes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would like to propose very simple approach:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * *upstream* -> apache/airflow
> > > > > > * *origin* -> your fork
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We could add instructions for checking out and adding airflow to
> > > follow
> > > > > the
> > > > > > convention. This would also make our documentation more
> consistent
> > > and
> > > > > > agent-followable, reducing back-and-forth.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And renaming remotes is easy - so would be quite easy for people
> to
> > > > > switch
> > > > > > (other than muscle memory).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] standardizing fork names for Airflow remjotes
Posted by Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>.
You are not on ASF mailing lists - you know nothing about bike-shedding :)
On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 9:09 PM Ferruzzi, Dennis <fe...@amazon.com>
wrote:
> In the end, we're all free do use whichever we prefer for our own
> environments and we are bikeshedding a doc change. I appreciate whichever
> you decide to standardize the docs on, Jarek.
> ________________________________
> From: Vincent Beck <vi...@apache.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 7:31 AM
> To: dev@airflow.apache.org <de...@airflow.apache.org>
> Subject: RE: [EXT] [DISCUSS] standardizing fork names for Airflow remjotes
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know
> the content is safe.
>
>
>
> AVERTISSEMENT: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un expéditeur externe.
> Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si vous ne pouvez
> pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes pas certain que
> le contenu ne présente aucun risque.
>
>
>
> Makes sense to me to use upstream and origin
>
> On 2026/04/21 12:19:55 Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> > Good feedback :) I am glad to see it coming :).
> >
> > Just to be sure, standardizing isn't a "must"; for me it's really more of
> > avoiding ambiguities in the docs, and making manual and agentic
> > contributions. I am on a quest to cut every unnecessary corner of our
> > process to minimize time loss for individuals.
> >
> > We already had two iterations in our docs to guide agents on which
> remotes
> > to push to (mine [1] and Kaxil's [2]). Both guides would be basically
> > unnecessary, and I saw my agent struggling quite a bit and losing tokens
> > while figuring out what to do, so I thought it might be good if we
> > standardize. We also use different conventions in different parts of the
> > docs, so it an also confuse people.
> >
> > I personally used "apache" and "origin" so far, but I recently switched
> to
> > "upstream"/"origin," which made my agent's work and manual pushes
> > significantly easier (And I switched almost instantly).
> >
> > My proposal is to switch to "upstream" and "origin".
> >
> > For those using agents, we can add instructions for them to clean up the
> > setup if they see we do not follow the convention. The agent will then
> > propose a one-time migration to the new standard.
> >
> > J.
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/62575
> > [2] https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/62748
> >
> > J.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 11:12 AM Piyush Mudgal <
> pranyasharma55555@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I use upstream for apache/airflow and origin for personal forks as
> it's a
> > > pretty common github convention
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Piyush
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 12:53 PM Wei Lee <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm also using "apache" for "apache/airflow". (but I use "upstream"
> for
> > > all
> > > > other projects...) Either way kinda works for me. like "apache" a bit
> > > more,
> > > > but I'm ok with "upstream".
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Wei
> > > >
> > > > Shahar Epstein <sh...@apache.org> 於 2026年4月21日週二 下午2:52寫道：
> > > >
> > > > > Personally I'm used to "apache" as the upstream name, but I could
> live
> > > > with
> > > > > "upstream".
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Shahar
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 2:24 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > While preparing release documentation, I noticed that we use
> quite
> > > > > > different approaches for remote naming in various examples and
> > > > tutorials.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Standardizing on those remotes would be easier for both new
> > > > contributors
> > > > > > and agents; currently, we have some instruction on how to find
> the
> > > righ
> > > > > > remotes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would like to propose very simple approach:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * *upstream* -> apache/airflow
> > > > > > * *origin* -> your fork
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We could add instructions for checking out and adding airflow to
> > > follow
> > > > > the
> > > > > > convention. This would also make our documentation more
> consistent
> > > and
> > > > > > agent-followable, reducing back-and-forth.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And renaming remotes is easy - so would be quite easy for people
> to
> > > > > switch
> > > > > > (other than muscle memory).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] standardizing fork names for Airflow remjotes
Posted by "Ferruzzi, Dennis" <fe...@amazon.com>.
In the end, we're all free do use whichever we prefer for our own environments and we are bikeshedding a doc change. I appreciate whichever you decide to standardize the docs on, Jarek.
________________________________
From: Vincent Beck <vi...@apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 7:31 AM
To: dev@airflow.apache.org <de...@airflow.apache.org>
Subject: RE: [EXT] [DISCUSS] standardizing fork names for Airflow remjotes
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
AVERTISSEMENT: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un expéditeur externe. Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si vous ne pouvez pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes pas certain que le contenu ne présente aucun risque.
Makes sense to me to use upstream and origin
On 2026/04/21 12:19:55 Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> Good feedback :) I am glad to see it coming :).
>
> Just to be sure, standardizing isn't a "must"; for me it's really more of
> avoiding ambiguities in the docs, and making manual and agentic
> contributions. I am on a quest to cut every unnecessary corner of our
> process to minimize time loss for individuals.
>
> We already had two iterations in our docs to guide agents on which remotes
> to push to (mine [1] and Kaxil's [2]). Both guides would be basically
> unnecessary, and I saw my agent struggling quite a bit and losing tokens
> while figuring out what to do, so I thought it might be good if we
> standardize. We also use different conventions in different parts of the
> docs, so it an also confuse people.
>
> I personally used "apache" and "origin" so far, but I recently switched to
> "upstream"/"origin," which made my agent's work and manual pushes
> significantly easier (And I switched almost instantly).
>
> My proposal is to switch to "upstream" and "origin".
>
> For those using agents, we can add instructions for them to clean up the
> setup if they see we do not follow the convention. The agent will then
> propose a one-time migration to the new standard.
>
> J.
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/62575
> [2] https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/62748
>
> J.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 11:12 AM Piyush Mudgal <pr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I use upstream for apache/airflow and origin for personal forks as it's a
> > pretty common github convention
> >
> > Best,
> > Piyush
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 12:53 PM Wei Lee <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm also using "apache" for "apache/airflow". (but I use "upstream" for
> > all
> > > other projects...) Either way kinda works for me. like "apache" a bit
> > more,
> > > but I'm ok with "upstream".
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Wei
> > >
> > > Shahar Epstein <sh...@apache.org> 於 2026年4月21日週二 下午2:52寫道：
> > >
> > > > Personally I'm used to "apache" as the upstream name, but I could live
> > > with
> > > > "upstream".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Shahar
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 2:24 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > While preparing release documentation, I noticed that we use quite
> > > > > different approaches for remote naming in various examples and
> > > tutorials.
> > > > >
> > > > > Standardizing on those remotes would be easier for both new
> > > contributors
> > > > > and agents; currently, we have some instruction on how to find the
> > righ
> > > > > remotes.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to propose very simple approach:
> > > > >
> > > > > * *upstream* -> apache/airflow
> > > > > * *origin* -> your fork
> > > > >
> > > > > We could add instructions for checking out and adding airflow to
> > follow
> > > > the
> > > > > convention. This would also make our documentation more consistent
> > and
> > > > > agent-followable, reducing back-and-forth.
> > > > >
> > > > > And renaming remotes is easy - so would be quite easy for people to
> > > > switch
> > > > > (other than muscle memory).
> > > > >
> > > > > WDYT?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] standardizing fork names for Airflow remjotes
Posted by Vincent Beck <vi...@apache.org>.
Makes sense to me to use upstream and origin
On 2026/04/21 12:19:55 Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> Good feedback :) I am glad to see it coming :).
>
> Just to be sure, standardizing isn't a "must"; for me it's really more of
> avoiding ambiguities in the docs, and making manual and agentic
> contributions. I am on a quest to cut every unnecessary corner of our
> process to minimize time loss for individuals.
>
> We already had two iterations in our docs to guide agents on which remotes
> to push to (mine [1] and Kaxil's [2]). Both guides would be basically
> unnecessary, and I saw my agent struggling quite a bit and losing tokens
> while figuring out what to do, so I thought it might be good if we
> standardize. We also use different conventions in different parts of the
> docs, so it an also confuse people.
>
> I personally used "apache" and "origin" so far, but I recently switched to
> "upstream"/"origin," which made my agent's work and manual pushes
> significantly easier (And I switched almost instantly).
>
> My proposal is to switch to "upstream" and "origin".
>
> For those using agents, we can add instructions for them to clean up the
> setup if they see we do not follow the convention. The agent will then
> propose a one-time migration to the new standard.
>
> J.
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/62575
> [2] https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/62748
>
> J.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 11:12 AM Piyush Mudgal <pr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I use upstream for apache/airflow and origin for personal forks as it's a
> > pretty common github convention
> >
> > Best,
> > Piyush
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 12:53 PM Wei Lee <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm also using "apache" for "apache/airflow". (but I use "upstream" for
> > all
> > > other projects...) Either way kinda works for me. like "apache" a bit
> > more,
> > > but I'm ok with "upstream".
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Wei
> > >
> > > Shahar Epstein <sh...@apache.org> 於 2026年4月21日週二 下午2:52寫道：
> > >
> > > > Personally I'm used to "apache" as the upstream name, but I could live
> > > with
> > > > "upstream".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Shahar
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 2:24 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > While preparing release documentation, I noticed that we use quite
> > > > > different approaches for remote naming in various examples and
> > > tutorials.
> > > > >
> > > > > Standardizing on those remotes would be easier for both new
> > > contributors
> > > > > and agents; currently, we have some instruction on how to find the
> > righ
> > > > > remotes.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to propose very simple approach:
> > > > >
> > > > > * *upstream* -> apache/airflow
> > > > > * *origin* -> your fork
> > > > >
> > > > > We could add instructions for checking out and adding airflow to
> > follow
> > > > the
> > > > > convention. This would also make our documentation more consistent
> > and
> > > > > agent-followable, reducing back-and-forth.
> > > > >
> > > > > And renaming remotes is easy - so would be quite easy for people to
> > > > switch
> > > > > (other than muscle memory).
> > > > >
> > > > > WDYT?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] standardizing fork names for Airflow remjotes
Posted by Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>.
Good feedback :) I am glad to see it coming :).
Just to be sure, standardizing isn't a "must"; for me it's really more of
avoiding ambiguities in the docs, and making manual and agentic
contributions. I am on a quest to cut every unnecessary corner of our
process to minimize time loss for individuals.
We already had two iterations in our docs to guide agents on which remotes
to push to (mine [1] and Kaxil's [2]). Both guides would be basically
unnecessary, and I saw my agent struggling quite a bit and losing tokens
while figuring out what to do, so I thought it might be good if we
standardize. We also use different conventions in different parts of the
docs, so it an also confuse people.
I personally used "apache" and "origin" so far, but I recently switched to
"upstream"/"origin," which made my agent's work and manual pushes
significantly easier (And I switched almost instantly).
My proposal is to switch to "upstream" and "origin".
For those using agents, we can add instructions for them to clean up the
setup if they see we do not follow the convention. The agent will then
propose a one-time migration to the new standard.
J.
[1] https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/62575
[2] https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/62748
J.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 11:12 AM Piyush Mudgal <pr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I use upstream for apache/airflow and origin for personal forks as it's a
> pretty common github convention
>
> Best,
> Piyush
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 12:53 PM Wei Lee <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm also using "apache" for "apache/airflow". (but I use "upstream" for
> all
> > other projects...) Either way kinda works for me. like "apache" a bit
> more,
> > but I'm ok with "upstream".
> >
> > Best,
> > Wei
> >
> > Shahar Epstein <sh...@apache.org> 於 2026年4月21日週二 下午2:52寫道：
> >
> > > Personally I'm used to "apache" as the upstream name, but I could live
> > with
> > > "upstream".
> > >
> > >
> > > Shahar
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 2:24 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > While preparing release documentation, I noticed that we use quite
> > > > different approaches for remote naming in various examples and
> > tutorials.
> > > >
> > > > Standardizing on those remotes would be easier for both new
> > contributors
> > > > and agents; currently, we have some instruction on how to find the
> righ
> > > > remotes.
> > > >
> > > > I would like to propose very simple approach:
> > > >
> > > > * *upstream* -> apache/airflow
> > > > * *origin* -> your fork
> > > >
> > > > We could add instructions for checking out and adding airflow to
> follow
> > > the
> > > > convention. This would also make our documentation more consistent
> and
> > > > agent-followable, reducing back-and-forth.
> > > >
> > > > And renaming remotes is easy - so would be quite easy for people to
> > > switch
> > > > (other than muscle memory).
> > > >
> > > > WDYT?
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] standardizing fork names for Airflow remjotes
Posted by Piyush Mudgal <pr...@gmail.com>.
I use upstream for apache/airflow and origin for personal forks as it's a
pretty common github convention
Best,
Piyush
On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 12:53 PM Wei Lee <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm also using "apache" for "apache/airflow". (but I use "upstream" for all
> other projects...) Either way kinda works for me. like "apache" a bit more,
> but I'm ok with "upstream".
>
> Best,
> Wei
>
> Shahar Epstein <sh...@apache.org> 於 2026年4月21日週二 下午2:52寫道：
>
> > Personally I'm used to "apache" as the upstream name, but I could live
> with
> > "upstream".
> >
> >
> > Shahar
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 2:24 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > While preparing release documentation, I noticed that we use quite
> > > different approaches for remote naming in various examples and
> tutorials.
> > >
> > > Standardizing on those remotes would be easier for both new
> contributors
> > > and agents; currently, we have some instruction on how to find the righ
> > > remotes.
> > >
> > > I would like to propose very simple approach:
> > >
> > > * *upstream* -> apache/airflow
> > > * *origin* -> your fork
> > >
> > > We could add instructions for checking out and adding airflow to follow
> > the
> > > convention. This would also make our documentation more consistent and
> > > agent-followable, reducing back-and-forth.
> > >
> > > And renaming remotes is easy - so would be quite easy for people to
> > switch
> > > (other than muscle memory).
> > >
> > > WDYT?
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] standardizing fork names for Airflow remjotes
Posted by Pierre Jeambrun <pi...@gmail.com>.
I’m using apache too. I have dozens of remotes and this follows the name
pattern I use for other remotes.
On Tue 21 Apr 2026 at 09:23, Wei Lee <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm also using "apache" for "apache/airflow". (but I use "upstream" for all
> other projects...) Either way kinda works for me. like "apache" a bit more,
> but I'm ok with "upstream".
>
> Best,
> Wei
>
> Shahar Epstein <sh...@apache.org> 於 2026年4月21日週二 下午2:52寫道：
>
> > Personally I'm used to "apache" as the upstream name, but I could live
> with
> > "upstream".
> >
> >
> > Shahar
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 2:24 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > While preparing release documentation, I noticed that we use quite
> > > different approaches for remote naming in various examples and
> tutorials.
> > >
> > > Standardizing on those remotes would be easier for both new
> contributors
> > > and agents; currently, we have some instruction on how to find the righ
> > > remotes.
> > >
> > > I would like to propose very simple approach:
> > >
> > > * *upstream* -> apache/airflow
> > > * *origin* -> your fork
> > >
> > > We could add instructions for checking out and adding airflow to follow
> > the
> > > convention. This would also make our documentation more consistent and
> > > agent-followable, reducing back-and-forth.
> > >
> > > And renaming remotes is easy - so would be quite easy for people to
> > switch
> > > (other than muscle memory).
> > >
> > > WDYT?
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] standardizing fork names for Airflow remjotes
Posted by Wei Lee <we...@gmail.com>.
I'm also using "apache" for "apache/airflow". (but I use "upstream" for all
other projects...) Either way kinda works for me. like "apache" a bit more,
but I'm ok with "upstream".
Best,
Wei
Shahar Epstein <sh...@apache.org> 於 2026年4月21日週二 下午2:52寫道：
> Personally I'm used to "apache" as the upstream name, but I could live with
> "upstream".
>
>
> Shahar
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 2:24 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > While preparing release documentation, I noticed that we use quite
> > different approaches for remote naming in various examples and tutorials.
> >
> > Standardizing on those remotes would be easier for both new contributors
> > and agents; currently, we have some instruction on how to find the righ
> > remotes.
> >
> > I would like to propose very simple approach:
> >
> > * *upstream* -> apache/airflow
> > * *origin* -> your fork
> >
> > We could add instructions for checking out and adding airflow to follow
> the
> > convention. This would also make our documentation more consistent and
> > agent-followable, reducing back-and-forth.
> >
> > And renaming remotes is easy - so would be quite easy for people to
> switch
> > (other than muscle memory).
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] standardizing fork names for Airflow remjotes
Posted by Shahar Epstein <sh...@apache.org>.
Personally I'm used to "apache" as the upstream name, but I could live with
"upstream".
Shahar
On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 2:24 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> While preparing release documentation, I noticed that we use quite
> different approaches for remote naming in various examples and tutorials.
>
> Standardizing on those remotes would be easier for both new contributors
> and agents; currently, we have some instruction on how to find the righ
> remotes.
>
> I would like to propose very simple approach:
>
> * *upstream* -> apache/airflow
> * *origin* -> your fork
>
> We could add instructions for checking out and adding airflow to follow the
> convention. This would also make our documentation more consistent and
> agent-followable, reducing back-and-forth.
>
> And renaming remotes is easy - so would be quite easy for people to switch
> (other than muscle memory).
>
> WDYT?
>