airflow-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Crawford <michael.crawf...@modernizingmedicine.com>
Subject Re: Airflow 1.9.0 status
Date Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:11:13 GMT
Can you slide the aws and emr connection type fix in?

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-1636 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-1636>
https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/pull/2626 <https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/pull/2626>

It keeps the connection type from getting blanked out on edit for these types.

Thanks,
Mike



> On Sep 21, 2017, at 1:27 PM, Chris Riccomini <criccomini@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Absolutely. Just cherry-picked. I've been looking forward to these fixes!
> 
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Alex Guziel <alex.guziel@airbnb.com.invalid
>> wrote:
> 
>> Can we get this in?
>> 
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-1519
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-1621
>> 
>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/commit/
>> b6d2e0a46978e93e16576604624f57d1388814f2
>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/commit/
>> 656d045e90bf67ca484a3778b2a07a419bfb324a
>> 
>> It speeds up loading times a lot, so it's a good thing to have in 1.9.
>> 
>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Chris Riccomini <criccomini@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Sounds good. I'll plan on stable+beta next week, then. Initial warning
>>> stands, that I will start locking down what can get into 1.9.0 at that
>>> point.
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Bolke de Bruin <bdbruin@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> No vote indeed, just to gather feedback on a particular fixed point in
>>>> time. It also gives a bit more trust to a tarball than to a git pull.
>>>> 
>>>> Bolke
>>>> 
>>>>> On 20 Sep 2017, at 20:09, Chris Riccomini <criccomini@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I can do a beta. Is the process significantly different? IIRC, it's
>>>>> basically the same, just no vote, right?
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Bolke de Bruin <bdbruin@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Are you sure you want to go ahead and do RCs right away? Isn’t
a
>> beta
>>> a
>>>>>> bit smarter?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> - Bolke
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 20 Sep 2017, at 19:41, Chris Riccomini <criccomini@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hey all,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I want to send out a warning that I'm planning to cut the stable
>>> branch
>>>>>>> next week, and begin the RC1 release vote. Once the stable branch
>> is
>>>>>> cut, I
>>>>>>> will be locking down what commits get cherry picked into the
>> branch,
>>>> and
>>>>>>> will only be doing PRs that are required to get the release out.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Chris Riccomini <
>>>> criccomini@apache.org
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hey all,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> An update on the 1.9.0 release. Here are the outstanding
PRs that
>>> are
>>>>>>>> slated to be included into 1.9.0:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> ISSUE ID     |STATUS    |DESCRIPTION
>>>>>>>> AIRFLOW-1617 |Open      |XSS Vulnerability in Variable endpoint
>>>>>>>> AIRFLOW-1611 |Open      |Customize logging in Airflow
>>>>>>>> AIRFLOW-1605 |Reopened  |Fix log source of local loggers
>>>>>>>> AIRFLOW-1604 |Open      |Rename the logger to log
>>>>>>>> AIRFLOW-1525 |Open      |Fix minor LICENSE & NOTICE issue
>>>>>>>> AIRFLOW-1499 |In Progres|Eliminate duplicate and unneeded
code
>>>>>>>> AIRFLOW-1198 |Open      |HDFSOperator to operate HDFS
>>>>>>>> AIRFLOW-1055 |Open      |airflow/jobs.py:create_dag_run()
>> exception
>>>> for
>>>>>>>> @on
>>>>>>>> AIRFLOW-1019 |Open      |active_dagruns shouldn't include
paused
>>> DAGs
>>>>>>>> AIRFLOW-1018 |Open      |Scheduler DAG processes can not
log to
>>> stdout
>>>>>>>> AIRFLOW-1015 |Open      |TreeView displayed over task instances
>>>>>>>> AIRFLOW-1013 |Open      |airflow/jobs.py:manage_slas() exception
>> for
>>>>>>>> @once
>>>>>>>> AIRFLOW-976  |Open      |Mark success running task causes
it to
>> fail
>>>>>>>> AIRFLOW-914  |Open      |Refactor BackfillJobTest.test_backfill_
>>>>>> examples
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> AIRFLOW-913  |Open      |Refactor tests.CoreTest.test_scheduler_
>> job
>>>> to
>>>>>>>> real
>>>>>>>> AIRFLOW-912  |Open      |Refactor tests and build matrix
>>>>>>>> AIRFLOW-888  |Open      |Operators should not push XComs
by
>> default
>>>>>>>> AIRFLOW-828  |Open      |Add maximum size for XComs
>>>>>>>> AIRFLOW-825  |Open      |Add Dataflow semantics
>>>>>>>> AIRFLOW-788  |Open      |Context unexpectedly added to hive
conf
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I will be locking down what can get cherry-picked into the
1.9.0
>>>> branch
>>>>>>>> shortly, so if you have something you want in, please set
the fix
>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>> to 1.9.0.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We (at WePay) have deployed 1.9.0 into our dev cluster, and
it has
>>>> been
>>>>>>>> running smoothly for several days.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> ** I could really use help verifying stability. If you run
>> Airflow,
>>>> it's
>>>>>>>> in your best interest to deploy the 1.9.0 test branch somewhere,
>> and
>>>>>> verify
>>>>>>>> it's working for your workload. **
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message