airflow-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jarek Potiuk <Jarek.Pot...@polidea.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Moving stuff from CWiki to Github ?
Date Wed, 05 Aug 2020 16:15:41 GMT
What do you think ? https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10176 (I
pinned it)

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 2:10 PM Jarek Potiuk <Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
wrote:

> I love the idea with Pinned Issue keeping "current initiatives".
>
> TL;DR; Summarizing the current proposal
>
> * We keep pretty much everything in labelled Github Issues (including
> "meta" issues)
> * We disable back Wiki in Github
> * We have a pinned issue with "Current Initiatives" linked
> * We cleanup CWiki move it/remove outdated info and the only thing that
> stays there, for now, are:
>     * "Announcements" (which we might later move to airflow.apache.org)
>      * Process description for Airflow 2.0
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Airflow+2.0+-+Planning
>      * AIPs
>
> If everyone is happy with this approach I am happy to make it happen :).
>
> J.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 12:35 PM Kamil BreguĊ‚a <kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 1.  I do not see a problem. Issues may have a prefix in the title, which
>> will allow us to easily find them.
>>
>> Release - Airflow 2.0
>> Release - Airflow 1.10
>> AIP-32 - API
>> AIP-XXX - Docker Image/Helm Chart
>> AIP-XXX - XXXX
>>
>> However, I do not mind using labels in this case.
>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/labels/AIP-31
>>
>> 2.  I think we can use the pinned issues. This will allow you to find them
>> easily because they will be closer to the tickets.
>>
>> https://docs.github.com/en/github/managing-your-work-on-github/pinning-an-issue-to-your-repository
>>
>> This feature has a significant limitation as we can only pin 3 issues, but
>> I think we can benefit from it as it will be easy to stay organized. To
>> overcome this limitation, one of the items may be indexed with the
>> currently running projects.  For now, I've pinned an issue with Airflow
>> 2.0
>> release info so we can see what it looks like. When we like it, we can
>> create an index and pin it. I think it will be much newer friendly than
>> WIKI. WDYT?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Kamil
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> .
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 11:49 AM Jarek Potiuk <Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I think it describes very well what we discussed so far. I have two
>> points
>> > to add:
>> >
>> > 1) Using Milestone:
>> >
>> > I prefer to keep milestones to only mark stuff for global releases of
>> > Airflow and nothing else. If we use Milestones for SIG groups this will
>> > become unmanageable (and I know Milestones are used by the release
>> > management scripts to verify if everything marked for release is already
>> > merged).
>> >
>> > 2) CWiki vs. Github Wiki and Index of "Currently running Airflow
>> > initiatives"
>> >
>> > Another thing that I wanted to add is whether we use both wikis (or one
>> > only) after cleanup I proposed.
>> > I think CWiki is better for design docs/discussions etc. - it has
>> diagram
>> > support built-in and a few other features that make it easier to have
>> > better "design" discussion. Github Wiki is very poor.
>> > I agree that Github issues are great for most of the stuff. But I think
>> we
>> > could use Github Wiki to keep index with links to the issues + one
>> sentence
>> > of explanation for those more "permanent" and long-running "meta"
>> > issues.I'd call it "Currently running Airflow initiatives":
>> >
>> > What I can see there currently is:
>> >
>> > * Airflow 2.0 Progress
>> > * Backport Release 2nd wave
>> > * Quarantine Issues (master, v1-10-test, v1-10-stable)
>> > * Refactors and cleanups
>> >     * Pylint
>> >     * MyPy
>> >     * ...
>> > * SIG Groups
>> >    * link to meta-issue for each SIG Group
>> >
>> > This would be a great point for newcomers to have a look of what's
>> going on
>> > currently in Airflow without having to look at 500 issues. It might be
>> > obvious for more seasoned committers that those initiatives are in
>> progress
>> > but you would not know that before you go into details of individual
>> "meta"
>> > issues (and you'd have to know that there are those meta issues in the
>> > first place). i think it's much more discoverable if we just have one
>> page
>> > in Github Wiki with those.
>> >
>> > WDYT?
>> >
>> > J.
>> >
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Jarek Potiuk
> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
>
> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
>
>

-- 

Jarek Potiuk
Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer

M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
[image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>

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