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...@polidea.com> on 2020/03/06 19:07:10 UTC
[VOTE] Backport package release process
Hello everyone,
This is a second attempt for voting on Backport package release process.
This is just voting on the process itself, not on the release of the
packages - we did not do it before so we have no process yet - so I
would like to agree on that first. The discussion was not very active
but i think the proposal below addresses all concerns people had so
far.
The voting will last till Tuesday 10 March 8 pm CET. All committers
have a binding vote.
My proposal for vote:
1. Packages are split "per provider". Packages will only
2. Whenever there are cross-package dependencies they are available as
"extras". It is automatically derived from the code - no need to
maintain it or change existing code.
3. The packages are testable using system tests and released only when
system tests pass for those on the latest Airflow version (1.10.9
currently) and 3.6 Python version. This is on top of the unit tests
running in master already.
4. The packages will be released with CALVER versioning 2020.03.06 .
Likely in batches after testing is completed.
5. Status of testing of the packages will be updated in our wiki page
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Backported+providers+packages+for+Airflow+1.10.*+series
6. I will be coordinating an effort to add system tests and test the
packages for as many providers as possible and try to get people
interested in it.
7. In the future we will automate such tests providing that we agree
on it - separate voting on "AIP-4 Support for Automation of System
Tests for external systems"
This is my (binding) +1 vote on it.
More information:
The current list of providers is available here:
https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/7506/files#diff-337e7c8a1a7c5e1e9be3c5d8063d7d4cR81
The current list of cross-dependencies (extras) is available here.
https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/7506/files#diff-ea1f65a8eaac0cec7ae151dfdbbbc587R355
The proposal was discussed in this thread:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rf6f2de8056b00ad084c96a9428670c14421a89ba2bbbd362d833bb50%40%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
I have a PR that implements "extras" approach for cross-package
dependencies here: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/7506
Related discussion about AIP-4 (Automation of system tests) is here:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r8c37e2289e8c8b438acc1415e9f2a1b74cd6feac831e02a17b01d88d%40%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
--
Jarek Potiuk
Polidea | Principal Software Engineer
M: +48 660 796 129
Re: [VOTE] Backport package release process
Posted by Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>.
Hello Everyone,
The vote on the process of backport packages is PASSED
+1 Jarek Potiuk
+1 Kaxil Naik
+1 Kamil Breguła
+1 Tomasz Urbaszek
+1 Daniel Imberman
I will describe it in more details soon and we are about to finish testing
first few provider packages (GCP and a few small ones that GCP depends on
such as Postgres/MySql) with system tests so we should be ready to test the
release process for those in the next few weeks most likely/
J.
On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 4:16 PM Daniel Imberman <da...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> +1 (binding)
> On Mar 8, 2020, 7:46 AM -0400, Tomasz Urbaszek <
> tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>, wrote:
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 10:40 PM Kamil Breguła <kamil.bregula@polidea.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 (binding)
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 10:29 PM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +1 (binding)
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 2:36 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Ah sorry. Earlier edits. Disregard this half-sentence please:
> > > > > Packages will only
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 8:14 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <as...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "1. Packages are split "per provider". Packages will only"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unfinished line there?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 6 March 2020 14:07:10 GMT-05:00, Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello everyone,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is a second attempt for voting on Backport package release
> > > process.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is just voting on the process itself, not on the release
> of the
> > > > > > > packages - we did not do it before so we have no process yet -
> so I
> > > > > > > would like to agree on that first. The discussion was not very
> > > active
> > > > > > > but i think the proposal below addresses all concerns people
> had so
> > > > > > > far.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The voting will last till Tuesday 10 March 8 pm CET. All
> committers
> > > > > > > have a binding vote.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My proposal for vote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. Packages are split "per provider". Packages will only
> > > > > > > 2. Whenever there are cross-package dependencies they are
> available
> > > as
> > > > > > > "extras". It is automatically derived from the code - no need
> to
> > > > > > > maintain it or change existing code.
> > > > > > > 3. The packages are testable using system tests and released
> only
> > > when
> > > > > > > system tests pass for those on the latest Airflow version
> (1.10.9
> > > > > > > currently) and 3.6 Python version. This is on top of the unit
> tests
> > > > > > > running in master already.
> > > > > > > 4. The packages will be released with CALVER versioning
> 2020.03.06 .
> > > > > > > Likely in batches after testing is completed.
> > > > > > > 5. Status of testing of the packages will be updated in our
> wiki
> > > page
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Backported+providers+packages+for+Airflow+1.10.*+series
> > > > > > > 6. I will be coordinating an effort to add system tests and
> test the
> > > > > > > packages for as many providers as possible and try to get
> people
> > > > > > > interested in it.
> > > > > > > 7. In the future we will automate such tests providing that we
> agree
> > > > > > > on it - separate voting on "AIP-4 Support for Automation of
> System
> > > > > > > Tests for external systems"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is my (binding) +1 vote on it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > More information:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The current list of providers is available here:
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/7506/files#diff-337e7c8a1a7c5e1e9be3c5d8063d7d4cR81
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The current list of cross-dependencies (extras) is available
> here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/7506/files#diff-ea1f65a8eaac0cec7ae151dfdbbbc587R355
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The proposal was discussed in this thread:
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rf6f2de8056b00ad084c96a9428670c14421a89ba2bbbd362d833bb50%40%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have a PR that implements "extras" approach for cross-package
> > > > > > > dependencies here: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/7506
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Related discussion about AIP-4 (Automation of system tests) is
> here:
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r8c37e2289e8c8b438acc1415e9f2a1b74cd6feac831e02a17b01d88d%40%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > > > >
> > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Tomasz Urbaszek
> > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Software Engineer
> >
> > M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
> > E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <to...@polidea.com>
> >
> > Unique Tech
> > Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>
>
--
Jarek Potiuk
Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
[image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
Re: [VOTE] Backport package release process
Posted by Daniel Imberman <da...@gmail.com>.
+1 (binding)
On Mar 8, 2020, 7:46 AM -0400, Tomasz Urbaszek <to...@polidea.com>, wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 10:40 PM Kamil Breguła <ka...@polidea.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 10:29 PM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 (binding)
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 2:36 AM Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ah sorry. Earlier edits. Disregard this half-sentence please:
> > > > Packages will only
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 8:14 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <as...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "1. Packages are split "per provider". Packages will only"
> > > > >
> > > > > Unfinished line there?
> > > > >
> > > > > On 6 March 2020 14:07:10 GMT-05:00, Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello everyone,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is a second attempt for voting on Backport package release
> > process.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is just voting on the process itself, not on the release of the
> > > > > > packages - we did not do it before so we have no process yet - so I
> > > > > > would like to agree on that first. The discussion was not very
> > active
> > > > > > but i think the proposal below addresses all concerns people had so
> > > > > > far.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The voting will last till Tuesday 10 March 8 pm CET. All committers
> > > > > > have a binding vote.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My proposal for vote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Packages are split "per provider". Packages will only
> > > > > > 2. Whenever there are cross-package dependencies they are available
> > as
> > > > > > "extras". It is automatically derived from the code - no need to
> > > > > > maintain it or change existing code.
> > > > > > 3. The packages are testable using system tests and released only
> > when
> > > > > > system tests pass for those on the latest Airflow version (1.10.9
> > > > > > currently) and 3.6 Python version. This is on top of the unit tests
> > > > > > running in master already.
> > > > > > 4. The packages will be released with CALVER versioning 2020.03.06 .
> > > > > > Likely in batches after testing is completed.
> > > > > > 5. Status of testing of the packages will be updated in our wiki
> > page
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Backported+providers+packages+for+Airflow+1.10.*+series
> > > > > > 6. I will be coordinating an effort to add system tests and test the
> > > > > > packages for as many providers as possible and try to get people
> > > > > > interested in it.
> > > > > > 7. In the future we will automate such tests providing that we agree
> > > > > > on it - separate voting on "AIP-4 Support for Automation of System
> > > > > > Tests for external systems"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is my (binding) +1 vote on it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > More information:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The current list of providers is available here:
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/7506/files#diff-337e7c8a1a7c5e1e9be3c5d8063d7d4cR81
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The current list of cross-dependencies (extras) is available here.
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/7506/files#diff-ea1f65a8eaac0cec7ae151dfdbbbc587R355
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The proposal was discussed in this thread:
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rf6f2de8056b00ad084c96a9428670c14421a89ba2bbbd362d833bb50%40%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have a PR that implements "extras" approach for cross-package
> > > > > > dependencies here: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/7506
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Related discussion about AIP-4 (Automation of system tests) is here:
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r8c37e2289e8c8b438acc1415e9f2a1b74cd6feac831e02a17b01d88d%40%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > > >
> > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Tomasz Urbaszek
> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Software Engineer
>
> M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
> E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <to...@polidea.com>
>
> Unique Tech
> Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>
Re: [VOTE] Backport package release process
Posted by Tomasz Urbaszek <to...@polidea.com>.
+1 (binding)
On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 10:40 PM Kamil Breguła <ka...@polidea.com>
wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 10:29 PM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 2:36 AM Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Ah sorry. Earlier edits. Disregard this half-sentence please:
> > > Packages will only
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 8:14 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <as...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "1. Packages are split "per provider". Packages will only"
> > > >
> > > > Unfinished line there?
> > > >
> > > > On 6 March 2020 14:07:10 GMT-05:00, Jarek Potiuk <
> > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Hello everyone,
> > > >>
> > > >> This is a second attempt for voting on Backport package release
> process.
> > > >>
> > > >> This is just voting on the process itself, not on the release of the
> > > >> packages - we did not do it before so we have no process yet - so I
> > > >> would like to agree on that first. The discussion was not very
> active
> > > >> but i think the proposal below addresses all concerns people had so
> > > >> far.
> > > >>
> > > >> The voting will last till Tuesday 10 March 8 pm CET. All committers
> > > >> have a binding vote.
> > > >>
> > > >> My proposal for vote:
> > > >>
> > > >> 1. Packages are split "per provider". Packages will only
> > > >> 2. Whenever there are cross-package dependencies they are available
> as
> > > >> "extras". It is automatically derived from the code - no need to
> > > >> maintain it or change existing code.
> > > >> 3. The packages are testable using system tests and released only
> when
> > > >> system tests pass for those on the latest Airflow version (1.10.9
> > > >> currently) and 3.6 Python version. This is on top of the unit tests
> > > >> running in master already.
> > > >> 4. The packages will be released with CALVER versioning 2020.03.06 .
> > > >> Likely in batches after testing is completed.
> > > >> 5. Status of testing of the packages will be updated in our wiki
> page
> > > >>
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Backported+providers+packages+for+Airflow+1.10.*+series
> > > >> 6. I will be coordinating an effort to add system tests and test the
> > > >> packages for as many providers as possible and try to get people
> > > >> interested in it.
> > > >> 7. In the future we will automate such tests providing that we agree
> > > >> on it - separate voting on "AIP-4 Support for Automation of System
> > > >> Tests for external systems"
> > > >>
> > > >> This is my (binding) +1 vote on it.
> > > >>
> > > >> More information:
> > > >>
> > > >> The current list of providers is available here:
> > > >>
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/7506/files#diff-337e7c8a1a7c5e1e9be3c5d8063d7d4cR81
> > > >>
> > > >> The current list of cross-dependencies (extras) is available here.
> > > >>
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/7506/files#diff-ea1f65a8eaac0cec7ae151dfdbbbc587R355
> > > >>
> > > >> The proposal was discussed in this thread:
> > > >>
> > >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rf6f2de8056b00ad084c96a9428670c14421a89ba2bbbd362d833bb50%40%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> > > >>
> > > >> I have a PR that implements "extras" approach for cross-package
> > > >> dependencies here: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/7506
> > > >>
> > > >> Related discussion about AIP-4 (Automation of system tests) is here:
> > > >>
> > >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r8c37e2289e8c8b438acc1415e9f2a1b74cd6feac831e02a17b01d88d%40%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > >
> > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > >
>
--
Tomasz Urbaszek
Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Software Engineer
M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <to...@polidea.com>
Unique Tech
Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>
Re: [VOTE] Backport package release process
Posted by Kamil Breguła <ka...@polidea.com>.
+1 (binding)
On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 10:29 PM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 2:36 AM Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Ah sorry. Earlier edits. Disregard this half-sentence please:
> > Packages will only
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 8:14 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <as...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > "1. Packages are split "per provider". Packages will only"
> > >
> > > Unfinished line there?
> > >
> > > On 6 March 2020 14:07:10 GMT-05:00, Jarek Potiuk <
> > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hello everyone,
> > >>
> > >> This is a second attempt for voting on Backport package release process.
> > >>
> > >> This is just voting on the process itself, not on the release of the
> > >> packages - we did not do it before so we have no process yet - so I
> > >> would like to agree on that first. The discussion was not very active
> > >> but i think the proposal below addresses all concerns people had so
> > >> far.
> > >>
> > >> The voting will last till Tuesday 10 March 8 pm CET. All committers
> > >> have a binding vote.
> > >>
> > >> My proposal for vote:
> > >>
> > >> 1. Packages are split "per provider". Packages will only
> > >> 2. Whenever there are cross-package dependencies they are available as
> > >> "extras". It is automatically derived from the code - no need to
> > >> maintain it or change existing code.
> > >> 3. The packages are testable using system tests and released only when
> > >> system tests pass for those on the latest Airflow version (1.10.9
> > >> currently) and 3.6 Python version. This is on top of the unit tests
> > >> running in master already.
> > >> 4. The packages will be released with CALVER versioning 2020.03.06 .
> > >> Likely in batches after testing is completed.
> > >> 5. Status of testing of the packages will be updated in our wiki page
> > >>
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Backported+providers+packages+for+Airflow+1.10.*+series
> > >> 6. I will be coordinating an effort to add system tests and test the
> > >> packages for as many providers as possible and try to get people
> > >> interested in it.
> > >> 7. In the future we will automate such tests providing that we agree
> > >> on it - separate voting on "AIP-4 Support for Automation of System
> > >> Tests for external systems"
> > >>
> > >> This is my (binding) +1 vote on it.
> > >>
> > >> More information:
> > >>
> > >> The current list of providers is available here:
> > >>
> > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/7506/files#diff-337e7c8a1a7c5e1e9be3c5d8063d7d4cR81
> > >>
> > >> The current list of cross-dependencies (extras) is available here.
> > >>
> > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/7506/files#diff-ea1f65a8eaac0cec7ae151dfdbbbc587R355
> > >>
> > >> The proposal was discussed in this thread:
> > >>
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rf6f2de8056b00ad084c96a9428670c14421a89ba2bbbd362d833bb50%40%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> > >>
> > >> I have a PR that implements "extras" approach for cross-package
> > >> dependencies here: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/7506
> > >>
> > >> Related discussion about AIP-4 (Automation of system tests) is here:
> > >>
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r8c37e2289e8c8b438acc1415e9f2a1b74cd6feac831e02a17b01d88d%40%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > --
> >
> > Jarek Potiuk
> > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> >
> > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> >
Re: [VOTE] Backport package release process
Posted by Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>.
+1 (binding)
On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 2:36 AM Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
wrote:
> Ah sorry. Earlier edits. Disregard this half-sentence please:
> Packages will only
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 8:14 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <as...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > "1. Packages are split "per provider". Packages will only"
> >
> > Unfinished line there?
> >
> > On 6 March 2020 14:07:10 GMT-05:00, Jarek Potiuk <
> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello everyone,
> >>
> >> This is a second attempt for voting on Backport package release process.
> >>
> >> This is just voting on the process itself, not on the release of the
> >> packages - we did not do it before so we have no process yet - so I
> >> would like to agree on that first. The discussion was not very active
> >> but i think the proposal below addresses all concerns people had so
> >> far.
> >>
> >> The voting will last till Tuesday 10 March 8 pm CET. All committers
> >> have a binding vote.
> >>
> >> My proposal for vote:
> >>
> >> 1. Packages are split "per provider". Packages will only
> >> 2. Whenever there are cross-package dependencies they are available as
> >> "extras". It is automatically derived from the code - no need to
> >> maintain it or change existing code.
> >> 3. The packages are testable using system tests and released only when
> >> system tests pass for those on the latest Airflow version (1.10.9
> >> currently) and 3.6 Python version. This is on top of the unit tests
> >> running in master already.
> >> 4. The packages will be released with CALVER versioning 2020.03.06 .
> >> Likely in batches after testing is completed.
> >> 5. Status of testing of the packages will be updated in our wiki page
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Backported+providers+packages+for+Airflow+1.10.*+series
> >> 6. I will be coordinating an effort to add system tests and test the
> >> packages for as many providers as possible and try to get people
> >> interested in it.
> >> 7. In the future we will automate such tests providing that we agree
> >> on it - separate voting on "AIP-4 Support for Automation of System
> >> Tests for external systems"
> >>
> >> This is my (binding) +1 vote on it.
> >>
> >> More information:
> >>
> >> The current list of providers is available here:
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/7506/files#diff-337e7c8a1a7c5e1e9be3c5d8063d7d4cR81
> >>
> >> The current list of cross-dependencies (extras) is available here.
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/7506/files#diff-ea1f65a8eaac0cec7ae151dfdbbbc587R355
> >>
> >> The proposal was discussed in this thread:
> >>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rf6f2de8056b00ad084c96a9428670c14421a89ba2bbbd362d833bb50%40%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> >>
> >> I have a PR that implements "extras" approach for cross-package
> >> dependencies here: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/7506
> >>
> >> Related discussion about AIP-4 (Automation of system tests) is here:
> >>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r8c37e2289e8c8b438acc1415e9f2a1b74cd6feac831e02a17b01d88d%40%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> >>
> >>
>
> --
>
> Jarek Potiuk
> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
>
> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
>
Re: [VOTE] Backport package release process
Posted by Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>.
Ah sorry. Earlier edits. Disregard this half-sentence please:
Packages will only
On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 8:14 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <as...@apache.org> wrote:
> "1. Packages are split "per provider". Packages will only"
>
> Unfinished line there?
>
> On 6 March 2020 14:07:10 GMT-05:00, Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> This is a second attempt for voting on Backport package release process.
>>
>> This is just voting on the process itself, not on the release of the
>> packages - we did not do it before so we have no process yet - so I
>> would like to agree on that first. The discussion was not very active
>> but i think the proposal below addresses all concerns people had so
>> far.
>>
>> The voting will last till Tuesday 10 March 8 pm CET. All committers
>> have a binding vote.
>>
>> My proposal for vote:
>>
>> 1. Packages are split "per provider". Packages will only
>> 2. Whenever there are cross-package dependencies they are available as
>> "extras". It is automatically derived from the code - no need to
>> maintain it or change existing code.
>> 3. The packages are testable using system tests and released only when
>> system tests pass for those on the latest Airflow version (1.10.9
>> currently) and 3.6 Python version. This is on top of the unit tests
>> running in master already.
>> 4. The packages will be released with CALVER versioning 2020.03.06 .
>> Likely in batches after testing is completed.
>> 5. Status of testing of the packages will be updated in our wiki page
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Backported+providers+packages+for+Airflow+1.10.*+series
>> 6. I will be coordinating an effort to add system tests and test the
>> packages for as many providers as possible and try to get people
>> interested in it.
>> 7. In the future we will automate such tests providing that we agree
>> on it - separate voting on "AIP-4 Support for Automation of System
>> Tests for external systems"
>>
>> This is my (binding) +1 vote on it.
>>
>> More information:
>>
>> The current list of providers is available here:
>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/7506/files#diff-337e7c8a1a7c5e1e9be3c5d8063d7d4cR81
>>
>> The current list of cross-dependencies (extras) is available here.
>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/7506/files#diff-ea1f65a8eaac0cec7ae151dfdbbbc587R355
>>
>> The proposal was discussed in this thread:
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rf6f2de8056b00ad084c96a9428670c14421a89ba2bbbd362d833bb50%40%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
>>
>> I have a PR that implements "extras" approach for cross-package
>> dependencies here: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/7506
>>
>> Related discussion about AIP-4 (Automation of system tests) is here:
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r8c37e2289e8c8b438acc1415e9f2a1b74cd6feac831e02a17b01d88d%40%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
>>
>>
--
Jarek Potiuk
Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
[image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
Re: [VOTE] Backport package release process
Posted by Ash Berlin-Taylor <as...@apache.org>.
"1. Packages are split "per provider". Packages will only"
Unfinished line there?
On 6 March 2020 14:07:10 GMT-05:00, Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com> wrote:
>Hello everyone,
>
>This is a second attempt for voting on Backport package release
>process.
>
>This is just voting on the process itself, not on the release of the
>packages - we did not do it before so we have no process yet - so I
>would like to agree on that first. The discussion was not very active
>but i think the proposal below addresses all concerns people had so
>far.
>
>The voting will last till Tuesday 10 March 8 pm CET. All committers
>have a binding vote.
>
>My proposal for vote:
>
>1. Packages are split "per provider". Packages will only
>2. Whenever there are cross-package dependencies they are available as
>"extras". It is automatically derived from the code - no need to
>maintain it or change existing code.
>3. The packages are testable using system tests and released only when
>system tests pass for those on the latest Airflow version (1.10.9
>currently) and 3.6 Python version. This is on top of the unit tests
>running in master already.
>4. The packages will be released with CALVER versioning 2020.03.06 .
>Likely in batches after testing is completed.
>5. Status of testing of the packages will be updated in our wiki page
>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Backported+providers+packages+for+Airflow+1.10.*+series
>6. I will be coordinating an effort to add system tests and test the
>packages for as many providers as possible and try to get people
>interested in it.
>7. In the future we will automate such tests providing that we agree
>on it - separate voting on "AIP-4 Support for Automation of System
>Tests for external systems"
>
>This is my (binding) +1 vote on it.
>
>More information:
>
>The current list of providers is available here:
>https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/7506/files#diff-337e7c8a1a7c5e1e9be3c5d8063d7d4cR81
>
>The current list of cross-dependencies (extras) is available here.
>https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/7506/files#diff-ea1f65a8eaac0cec7ae151dfdbbbc587R355
>
>The proposal was discussed in this thread:
>https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rf6f2de8056b00ad084c96a9428670c14421a89ba2bbbd362d833bb50%40%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
>
>I have a PR that implements "extras" approach for cross-package
>dependencies here: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/7506
>
>Related discussion about AIP-4 (Automation of system tests) is here:
>https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r8c37e2289e8c8b438acc1415e9f2a1b74cd6feac831e02a17b01d88d%40%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
>
>--
>Jarek Potiuk
>Polidea | Principal Software Engineer
>
>M: +48 660 796 129