airflow-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Charlie Jones <cjo...@simpli.fi>
Subject Re: Airflow 1.9.0 status
Date Thu, 28 Sep 2017 16:56:47 GMT
Is there any chance we could include AIRFLOW-988 in 1.9.0? SLA callbacks
are not working correctly without emails... Its not a major bug, but it
does cause us some annoyance in our current deployment.

Link to Jira:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-988

Link to PR:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/pull/2415

Thanks!
Charlie Jones

CHARLIE JONES
Data Engineer
cjones@simpli.fi  |  M: 972.821.7631
__________________________________________________


Programmatic Performance.* Localized.*
__________________________________________________

1407 Texas Street  |  Suite 202  |  Fort Worth, TX 76102
800.840.0768  |  www.simpli.fi


On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Chris Riccomini <criccomini@apache.org>
wrote:

> Merged.
>
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Ryan Buckley <ryan.buckley@bluecore.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Would it be possible to include AIRFLOW-1587?
> > Running dags from the UI is currently broken on the 1.9.0 branch due to
> > this issue.
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/pull/2590
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ryan
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Driesprong, Fokko <fokko@driesprong.frl
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > I would like to include AIRFLOW-1611 in the 1.9.0 release:
> > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/pull/2631
> > >
> > > Currently importing a custom logging configuration is not work (as far
> > as I
> > > know). Any feedback on the PR would also be appreciated.
> > >
> > > Cheers, Fokko
> > >
> > >
> > > 2017-09-25 23:27 GMT+02:00 Chris Riccomini <criccomini@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > Done!
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 5:11 AM, Michael Crawford <
> > > > michael.crawford@modernizingmedicine.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 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