airflow-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Guziel <alex.guz...@airbnb.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: Airflow 1.9.0 status
Date Thu, 21 Sep 2017 00:23:34 GMT
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