Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Draft POC attempt to make a better structure for providers #28292

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

potiuk
Copy link
Member

@potiuk potiuk commented Dec 11, 2022

This is a draft attempt showing the new structure of provider
package if we separte them out to separate provider directory.

This is still not a complete solution - we need to work out a
few more things regarding docs building and breeze integration
and package importing so that everything works directly from
the sources, but it should be good to start discussion about the
move.


^ 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.rst or {issue_number}.significant.rst, in newsfragments.

@potiuk potiuk changed the title Move providers Draft POC attempt to make a better structure for providers Dec 11, 2022
@potiuk potiuk force-pushed the move-providers branch 10 times, most recently from 1af9d9e to f760cef Compare December 11, 2022 23:47
This is a draft attempt showing the new structure of provider
package if we separte them out to separate provider directory.

This is still not a complete solution - we need to work out a
few more things regarding docs building and breeze integration
and package importing so that everything works directly from
the sources, but it should be good to start discussion about the
move.
@github-actions
Copy link

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed in 5 days if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale Stale PRs per the .github/workflows/stale.yml policy file label Jan 27, 2023
@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Jan 29, 2023

not stale

@potiuk potiuk removed the stale Stale PRs per the .github/workflows/stale.yml policy file label Jan 29, 2023
@github-actions
Copy link

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed in 5 days if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale Stale PRs per the .github/workflows/stale.yml policy file label Mar 16, 2023
@potiuk potiuk added pinned Protect from Stalebot auto closing and removed stale Stale PRs per the .github/workflows/stale.yml policy file labels Mar 17, 2023
@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Mar 17, 2023

Not stale

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area:dev-tools area:providers pinned Protect from Stalebot auto closing
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant