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 Mon, 25 Sep 2017 21:27:56 GMT
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