airflow-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Riccomini <criccom...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Airflow 1.9.0 status
Date Wed, 20 Sep 2017 18:14:14 GMT
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