Include removed providers when preparing packages #36160
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
potiuk
requested review from
kaxil,
pierrejeambrun,
ashb and
jedcunningham
as code owners
50 tasks
eladkal
reviewed
Dec 11, 2023
potiuk
force-pushed
the
include-removed-providers-when-preparing-packages
branch
2 times, most recently
from
5886518 to
8a25c30
Compare
eladkal
approved these changes
Dec 12, 2023
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM
Thank you for taking care of this @potiuk
I think we should have #36160 (comment) as well but not mandatory
potiuk
force-pushed
the
include-removed-providers-when-preparing-packages
branch
from
8a25c30 to
607e881
Compare
As of recently, we have a possibility to schedule providers for removal. They should be removed once they got released the last time - with the removal note added to the documentation. We had a special step in the process to generate documentation and build packages, but this is pretty easy to forget it and miss such package when release is prepared. We modify the tooling slightly - removed providers will be included in release preparation even if they are techniclaly suspended and would be excluded (if they were not removed).
potiuk
force-pushed
the
include-removed-providers-when-preparing-packages
branch
from
607e881 to
997b96e
Compare
|
Added also |
potiuk
added a commit
to potiuk/airflow
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 12, 2023
The change apache#36160 included removed providers in documentation generation - which is unnecesary and we should not do it. This PR avoids doing it for removed providers.
potiuk
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 15, 2023
As of recently, we have a possibility to schedule providers for removal. They should be removed once they got released the last time - with the removal note added to the documentation. We had a special step in the process to generate documentation and build packages, but this is pretty easy to forget it and miss such package when release is prepared. We modify the tooling slightly - removed providers will be included in release preparation even if they are techniclaly suspended and would be excluded (if they were not removed). (cherry picked from commit a7bb9e2)
potiuk
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 15, 2023
ephraimbuddy
added
the
changelog:skip
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
As of recently, we have a possibility to schedule providers for removal. They should be removed once they got released the last time - with the removal note added to the documentation. We had a special step in the process to generate documentation and build packages, but this is pretty easy to forget it and miss such package when release is prepared.
We modify the tooling slightly - removed providers will be included in release preparation even if they are techniclaly suspended and would be excluded (if they were not removed).
^ Add meaningful description above
Read the Pull Request Guidelines for more information.
In case of fundamental code changes, an Airflow Improvement Proposal (AIP) is needed.
In case of a new dependency, check compliance with the ASF 3rd Party License Policy.
In case of backwards incompatible changes please leave a note in a newsfragment file, named
{pr_number}.significant.rstor{issue_number}.significant.rst, in newsfragments.