The dev calls are open for anyone in the community to join and help in the Airflow 3 efforts. 

Schedule: Fortnightly (once in 2 weeks) on Thursday at 4pm GMT/UTC

Table of Contents

• 8 May 2025
  • Proposed Agenda
  • Attendees
  • Summary
• 22 May 2025
  • Proposed Agenda
  • Attendees
  • Summary
• 5 June 2025
  • Proposed Agenda
  • Attendees
  • Summary
• 26 June 2025
  • Proposed Agenda
  • Attendees
  • Summary
• 3 July 2025
  • Proposed Agenda
  • Attendees
  • Summary
• 17 July 2025
  • Proposed Agenda
  • Attendees
  • Summary
• 31 July 2025
  • Proposed Agenda
  • Attendees
  • Summary
• 14 August 2025
  • Proposed Agenda
  • Attendees
  • Summary
• 28 August 2025
  • Proposed Agenda
  • Attendees
  • Summary
• 11 September 2025
  
  • Proposed Agenda
  • Attendees
  • Summary
• 23 October 2025
  • Proposed Agenda
  • Attendees
  • Summary
• 6 November 2025
  • Proposed Agenda
  • Attendees
  • Summary
• 20 November 2025
  • Proposed Agenda
  • Attendees
  • Summary
• 4 December 2025
  • Proposed Agenda
  • Attendees
  • Summary
• 18 December 2025
  • Proposed Agenda
  • Meeting cancelled 
• 15 January 2026
  • Proposed Agenda
  • Attendees
  • Summary
• 29 January 2026
  • Proposed Agenda
  • Attendees
  • Summary
• 12 February 2026
  • Proposed Agenda
  • Attendees
  • Summary
• 26 February 2026
  • Proposed Agenda
  • Attendees
  • Summary
• 12 March 2026
  • Proposed Agenda

8 May 2025

Proposed Agenda

Attendees

Summary

• Development Updates:
  • Update on the 3.0.1 release Unknown User (kaxilnaik) 
    • Kaxil mentioned that over 200 commits are part of 3.0.1 RC1 including many usability improvements.
    • He said that the voting for RC1 ends on Monday, the 12th of May. 
    • Jarek added that we would probably need an RC2 because of the inclusion of an older version of an Amazon provider. 
  • 2.11 release scope / timing Unknown User (kaxilnaik) 
    • Kaxil mentioned that the decision between 2.11 vs. 2.10.x was made because of several features and changes in the 2.x branch, which meant beyond a patch. 
    • Specifically, he mentioned the new Timetable addition as well as the PR for making sure that the metrics are aligned for consistent reporting. 
    • Another reason for the feature release was also to add support for "airflow config lint" which enables validation of the airflow configuration before upgrading to Airflow 3. 
• Discussion Topics:
  • 3.0 release feedback / discussion topics (All)
    • Vikram shared a quick update on the Airflow downloads by version over the last two weeks since Airflow 3 was released. 
    • Vikram highlighted that Airflow 3 has seen significant adoption with about 7.5% of the total Airflow downloads. The highest downloaded version continues to be 2.10, which is the last release on the 2.x release stream, with about a third of all downloads. Of course, these metrics should be taken with the usual grain of salt, because they are susceptible to image caching and CI processes.
    • Elad asked where features "missing" in Airflow 3 were documented. Vikram said that these were documented as breaking changes within the Upgrading to Airflow 3 doc. The team identified a couple of missing elements, which Elad volunteered to add. 
    • Jarek said that there was significant user confusion around upgrading to 3.0 with respect to DAG writing practices, specifically around imports. After much discussion, the conclusion was that one of the core problems here was the UX around doc versions on the website, being too subtle and not obvious to users about the differences between 2.x and 3.0 syntax. The action item for Jarek and Elad was to look at the docs UX to see if this could be made more obvious.
  • 3.1 release scope / timing discussion Unknown User (vikramkoka)  
    • In the follow-up discussion about the scope of 3.1, Vikram explained that the Airflow 3.1 scope was largely based on user feedback of 3.0 including the prior discussion about missing features.
    • The early draft of Airflow 3.1 scope is documented on the wiki for discussion. 
    • Vikram mentioned that Dennis couldn't make the call today, but asked for reviews on his PR which was early work towards Deadline Alerts, which replaces SLA alerts in Airflow 2.x and is currently scoped for Airflow 3.1. Rajesh added that he was confident with the timing, since Dennis and others were actively working on this and would be ready to update the team in two weeks' time.  
    • Jarek raised the question a
    • Other language support
    • Ash shared an update on the Go SDK. He shared a link to the branch with the draft incarnation and said that a PR would be coming soon. 
    • Vikram shared an update with the early Java SDK branch. Jens chimed in referencing the offline discussion with Vikram around leveraging the Edge API for these other languages.
    • The action item was for Jens, Ash, Kaxil, and Vikram to discuss async on any changes needed to the Edge provider. 
    • Ash raised a concern that we may not see significant adoption until the DAGs were in other languages as well. Elad and Jarek argued against the viewpoint feeling that a single task in a different language would be very powerful for application integration. Elad said that "The notion of executing a task directly without a wrapper DAG is a request I hear from time to time (already)". 
  • FAB upgrades (4.6.2 first, 5.0.0 later) Unknown User (potiuk) 
    • Jarek raised the FAB upgrade issue which we had deferred a couple of months ago to post 3.0. He said that we are in a much better situation now, but that he needed help with the SqlAlchemy migrations and would follow up on the dev list. 
    • As part of this conversation, there was a discussion about dropping support for Python 3.9 early. However, there was no appetite for that from the attendees because of all the complexity around doing this selectively for Core Airflow vs. Providers. This was going to be conveyed back to the dev list discussion by Jens.
  • Example DAGS Unknown User (jscheffl)  Unknown User (potiuk) 
    • Jens and Jarek brought up the issue with the Example DAGs which have grown to the point of having become too confusing, because they are used for two different purposes: One for developers testing Airflow before release, and second for users to learn how to use Airflow. 
    • There was clear agreement on separating the examples for those two use cases and Jarek was going to take the lead on that. 
    • Jens was going to take the lead on making the true end user example DAGs more useful with a story telling concept for a broad use case.  
      • UPDATE:
        • Planning Page: Examples Refurbish
        • Discussion in Slack: #sig-examples 
  • Continuing dev calls
    • Vikram suggested that we make these dev calls every two weeks going forward, rather than weekly.
    • There was immediate agreement on this. 
• Action items:
  • Airflow docs UX update to make versions more obvious (Elad, Jarek)
  • Update on Deadline Alerts AIP progress and Github board (Dennis, Rajesh)
  • Edge executor for other languages (Jens, Ash, Kaxil, Vikram)
  • Update devlist about no-go on Python 3.9 early drop support (Jens)
  • Get help on SqlAlchemy upgrade changes (Jarek)
  • Example Dags update (Jens, Jarek)
  • Make dev calls to be every two weeks (Vikram)

22 May 2025

Proposed Agenda

Attendees

Summary

• Catch-up on action items from last call:
  • Docs site update (Elad, Jarek)
    • Elad said that they could not make much progress on the Docs site update over the last couple of weeks, but would have an update by the next dev call. 
    • Jarek added that there has been significant improvements to the Doc publishing process, led by Pavan.
    • The team agreed with that and gave a shoutout to Pavan, Jarek, and everyone who had contributed to these improvements. 
  • Example Dags update (Jens, Jarek)
    • Jens talked about the small team who have gathered together to start working on improvements to the Example DAGs.
    • Jens shared the wiki page which was being used to track these ideas. 
    • There was a discussion around whether "testing DAGs" are useful to end users and if they should be tagged as "dual use" to reflect that they can be used as an example.
• Development Updates:
  • Deadline alerts AIP-85 (Dennis Ferruzzi, Rajesh B)
    • Dennis and Ramit gave an update on Deadline alerts which included a long, in-depth technical discussion around the implementation options. 
    • There was significant discussion around where the loop to check for alerts should be run as well as where the dag-level callbacks should be run. 
    • The view from the team was that system monitoring i.e. if the scheduler is down is out of scope for this effort and should be done outside of Airflow, i.e. if Schedulers (or Workers) are down, no SLAs would be fired. 
    • After the extended discussion, the summary was that we aligned on a variation of option 1 from the email, with the following elements:
      • Scheduler loop would be used for checking SLA misses
      • If an async notifier is specified, the callback would be run in the triggerer
      • If a sync notifier is specified, the callback would be run on a worker
      • We recommend async callbacks using the builtin Airflow async notifiers
  • Update on the 3.0.x and 2.11 releases Unknown User (kaxilnaik) 
    • Kaxil mentioned that we released 3.0.1 and 2.11 already and that we would be cutting 3.0.2 in about two weeks.
• Discussion Topics:
  • UI Internationalization
    • Brent shared that we had just merged a PR to support internationalization in the UI.
    • There was a lot of excitement around this. 
    • There was an early discussion on what terms should NOT be translated such as "DAG" or "Xcom".
    • This was to be followed up offline.
  • Golang SDK
    • Ash shared that he had raised a PR for an early incarnation of the Golang Task SDK and requested feedback. 
  • Airflow 3 feedback:
    • Pavan shared that he was at the Astronomer roadshow in London the day before and the feedback from people was very positive. 
    • Quote: "People are amazed with Airflow 3 features, dag versioning, Event driven scheduling. everyone looking to upgrade AF3, that's what i hear at least from the people i met :)"

5 June 2025

Proposed Agenda

Attendees

Summary

• Catch-up on action items from last call:
  • Docs site update (Jarek)
    • Jarek shared a quick, AI generated view of what an updated version selection UI could look like on the docs site. 
    • Jarek also articulated an idea of showing a banner (either left or top) to highlight which Airflow version was being viewed at the moment. 
    • Vikram brought up a point of possibly only showing the major.minor versions of docs, not showing the full list of patch versions as well, to avoid an overwhelming list of choices.
    • Vikram also brought up the issue of the Airflow Core version vs. Task SDK Version. Ash said that most of the docs would probably end up associated with the TaskSDK version, but we weren't there yet. 
    • Jens highlighted that we need to be careful to not overwhelm an initial user with the internal Airflow complexity. 
    • Ended the discussion with a desire to get feedback from UX perspectives, before proceeding forward.
• Development Updates and Presentations
  • UI plugins - Pierre
    • Pierre gave a quick update regarding the status of the UI plugins AIP. 
    • The first kind of plugins being worked on are the iframe plugins and the front-end will take care of rendering them. Templates can be used here with attributes including elements as TaskID and DagID, so that the display can show the context. 
    • The second kind of plugins will be to support React plugins. Additionally, Brent is thinking about dev tools to facilitate the creation of these plugins. 
    • All of this is aimed for 3.1 and quite confident on timing. 
    • Jens raised the question of whether these should initially be marked as "experimental", so that we have the flexibility to change the interface based on initial feedback. 
  • Deadline Alerts - Dennis
    • Dennis raised a database design question for the team encountered during the development of the AIP.
    • Specifically whether to only keep the list of deadline alerts to be checked in the database table, or to keep historical records (such as deadlines met or not met) as well. The point was regarding the performance impact of keeping more data vs. the benefits of keeping this information. 
    • Pierre raised the point that keeping more than "currently in flight" deadlines would be useful from a UI/UX perspective.
    • Dennis was wondering if an index would be sufficient to mitigate performance. Ramit suggested using a view and Vikram suggested that in the worst case, you could have a separate table.  
    • After some discussion, the action item was for Dennis to make the decision using tests / benchmarks based on expected sizes. 
  • Internationalization - Shahar
    • Shahar presented the proposed internationalization policy to address challenges with maintaining translations across 300 languages with only 70 committers. 
    • Shahar mentioned that German, Polish, Dutch, and Mandarin translations have already been merged.
    • And that, Hebrew and Arabic translations are pending review.
    • The presentation covered details such as assigning two roles for each locale: a translation owner responsible for language aspects and a code owner handling technical aspects, with translation sponsors to potentially be non-committers. 
    • It also referenced a process for release managers to notify code owners about missing translation items as part of cutting the release. 
    • The release process impact and timing prompted significant discussion with the team expressing concerns about increasing the burden on release managers. 
    • Jarek suggested starting the release process a week earlier to help accomplish this.
    • Shahar explained that the fallback policy was to use English when terms are not translated, but this raised UX concerns. 
    • The team agreed to limit the number of languages to start with to reduce overhead and implement a system for periodic reminders about missing translations. 
    • Shahar took the action item to follow up with potential refinements to reduce release friction.

26 June 2025

Proposed Agenda

Attendees

Summary

• Catch-up on action items from last call:
  • Docs site update (Jarek)
    • Jarek mentioned that there is an issue created for the work here.
    • The docs build process is a lot better now because of the work led by Pavan, but the actual result still needs work.
    • Jarek also spoke with Kamil about the original work done on the docs site and his availability to help. 
  • Update regarding internationalization impact on release process (Shahar)
    • Shahar said there isn't any change to the process from prior discussions. 
    • The expectation is for the Release Manager to announce that we will cut a new release and that serves as a notification for the code owner to finish translation by a particular date. 
    • The medium term intent is to publish translations outside of "Core Airflow". The initial concept here is to have translations released similar to provider releases and not to be tied to the core Airflow software release. This could be just a file release or even a data update to the database, to be figured out. 
    • There was a lot of enthusiasm from the team about how this project has happened so quickly and all the community involvement here. 
• Development Updates and Presentations (Please keep the updates to less than 10 minutes):
  • UI Plugins Update (Brent, Pierre)
    • Brent and Pierre did a quick demo of the UI plugins work and shared the progress to date. 
    • This included the common abstraction for the UI plugin regardless if the UI should be in a new tab or an iFrame rendering
    • The team was enthusiastic about the great progress here.
  • Deadline Alerts: Update on conclusion for database tradeoff (Dennis)
    • Ramit shared that the development completion target for Deadline alerts is the end of July
    • Ramit also shared that right now when a DAG is created with a deadline alert, the deadline would be created and stored in the database
    • The scheduler loop change work is upcoming and the database change approach will be figured out as part of that. 
    • Brent asked about needing to sync on the API endpoints for the same. Dennis to sync with Brent over the course of the next week.
• Discussion topics:
  • Multi-team discussion from dev list - (Jarek)
    • There was long spirited discussion around the multi-team effort. Jarek opened by asking for comments. 
    • Vikram went first, saying that he wanted to make sure that we were not trading off the simplicity of Airflow starter experience for individual data engineers with the complexity needed for large organizations wanting granular operational procedures. Vikram asserted that as an open source project, viral adoption has been the key to Airflow's success and that simplicity was important to maintain and in fact make better. 
    • Jarek immediately agreed with that assertion and said that was a key point in his desire to also simplify this AIP to multi-team, from the original, far more complex, multi-tenancy proposal. 
    • Vikram also said that he was surprised by the lack of reference to AIP-82 Event driven scheduling, since this was such a commonly used mechanism for segmenting Airflow deployments across teams from a ownership perspective, following classic distributed system principles. 
    • Jens also chimed in saying that we should perhaps articulate this better in the context of how to set up Airflow for large enterprises. 
    • There was a significant level of debate around the complexity vs. simplicity tradeoff, with Rajesh stating this is probably the most common requirement that MWAA hears from their customers. Niko also chimed in saying that we should be willing to accept some tradeoffs to simplicity. 
    • There was a further discussion on what needs in priority order needed to addressed here, with Kaxil raising the point that this raised significant operational considerations and he wanted to make sure that we were not getting in over our skis in complexity with quota management, etc. 
    • This ran out of time without an explicit decision in the meeting itself.
    • Jarek concluded by asking people to comment back in the AIP soon, so that feedback could be addressed in writing. 
  • Call for actions ...ah.. review! Example Dags! (Jens)
    • Jens raised a "call for action", asking people to help review the work on the Example DAGs and to contribute

3 July 2025

Proposed Agenda

Attendees

Summary

• Catch-up on action items from last call:
  • None
• Development updates and presentations: 
  • Airflow 3 adoption (Vikram)
    • Vikram shared that the download numbers show encouraging signs of 3.0 adoption, with about 12% of all downloads for the last month being for 3.0 placing it in third place, with 2.10 in the lead with 29% and 2.6 (still puzzling) in second place with 16%.  
    • Vikram also noted that 2.11 which was released after 3.0 is at 5% of downloads, which showed that more people were willing to go to 3.0 directly from earlier 2.x versions. 
    • Jens noted that it was still a very good thing that we had released 2.11, since 5% of people had upgraded to it from earlier 2.x versions, presumably because they were not yet ready to upgrade to 3.0. 
    • The team noted that for several organizations there were a couple of functional gaps, notably UI Plugins and "run as user" which blocked the upgrade to 3.0. Amogh responded that "run as user" is available as part of Airflow 3.0.3.
    • Vikram noted that the two big known gaps i.e. UI plugins and Deadline Alerts are targeted for the 3.1 release.
    • The team noted that we should make an effort to clean up any such small blockers in the 3.1 release. 
    • The ask for the community is to please highlight such gaps encountered in the dev list or the Airflow 3 dev slack channel. 
  • CLI update (Bugra)
    • Bugra walked through the Github project for this AIP as well as the current status of the work. 
    • Bugra stated that the project would be ready to be integrated into the release process in a couple of weeks.
    • Bugra also volunteered to help in the release process as needed. Jarek pointed out that some additional work may be needed around tests as part of getting ready for release. 
  • Airflow 3.1 update (Vikram)
    • Vikram shared the overall scope and timing of the Airflow 3.1 release as documented on the wiki page. 
    • The one area of significant discussion was the Human in the loop as detailed below.
• Discussion topics:
  • Human in the loop
    • Jens started the discussion here by pushing for the Human in the loop feature to be built and released as a separate provider, not within the standard provider package.
    • Kaxil vocally advocated for this to be in Core Airflow for simplicity and walked through the initial PR created by Wei to illustrate his rationale. 
    • Jarek vehemently agreed with Kaxil. 
    • Pierre also agreed with Kaxil, saying that he would prefer UI plugins to be only used by users, not by us as Airflow contributors. 
    • This then led to the discussion that we have gone too far with the Provider separation from Core Airflow. Jed brought up the point that he would like to get the Executors out of the Providers into a different package. 
    • The discussion ended with the decision to make the "core" Human in the loop functionality as part of Core Airflow. 
  • Code sharing discussion (Ash)
    • The prior discussion also led to the code sharing discussion between Task SDK and Core Airflow, following the thread brought up by Ash in the dev list. 
    • This was a great discussion with a lot of participation from everyone on the call. 
    • Ash to summarize this.

17 July 2025

Proposed Agenda

Attendees

Summary

• Catch-up on action items from last call:
  • None
• Development Updates
  • UI Plugins Update (Pierre and Brent)
    • Pierre shared that the React plugins implementation is nearly complete, including embedded web applications now working inside the Airflow UI. 
    • Pierre also said that key technical challenges have been resolved including react library sharing between plugins and Airflow Core.
    • Pierre raised one issue which had been open about where to keep the CLI/Python scripts to bootstrap React project. Based on team feedback, it was resolved to have those live within dev-tools. 
    • Brent gave a quick demo of the React plugins working in the Airflow UI
    • Outstanding work on this stream before the 3.1 release includes documentation and examples to demonstrate both iFrame and React app integration, as well as CSS fine-tuning for wider screen layouts. 
  • Task SDK Update (Kaxil, Ash, and Amogh)
    • Kaxil shared that multiple parallel work streams are active right now for this AIP
    • Ash is prototyping the common object sharing approaches (symlink vs. rendering). 
    • Utility code migration is happening based on that to appropriate locations (task SDK vs. shared). Serialization structure changes are also being done to support this. 
    • The Core Operator cleanup is happening, largely based on TP's work. Base Operator is now removed from Airflow models. Similar removal planned for Map operator and other core Operators. 
    • Branch Operator bug identified and is being addressed. 
  • Python 3.13 (Jarek)
    • Jarek shared that Python 3.13 is now available for all users and gave a quick demo of the same. 
    • Jarek also said that the Flask Application Builder (FAB) dependency has now been moved and a truly FAB-less Python 3.13 deployment is possible. 
    • Jarek also shared that Python 3.13 fixed a long-standing file description duplication bug. This bug could explain the recent "too many files open" issues in supervisor tasks. 
  • Deadline Alerts Update (Ramit and Rajesh)
    • Ramit shared that he had done performance testing on different approaches using a standalone Python script on Postgres, with 10 million rows. 
    • He tested 3 approaches: Two separate tables, view-based single table, and indexed single table. 
    • The index approach (state + deadline time) had the best performance and therefore led to the implementation approach of adding a state column to the deadlines tables. 
    • Ramit also shared that async callbacks would be run on the triggerer and synchronous callbacks on the workers. 
    • Rajesh shared that the deadline detection code is nearly complete, with the Slack and SMTP notifiers being implemented as async functions. Documentation is also in progress, with an estimated dev completion in about 2 weeks. 
    • There were questions around performance considerations and running under scale. 
• Discussion Topics
  • Airflow 3 adoption blockers
    • Vikram started the discussion with the commonly raised blockers that he had seen or been asked about:
    • Changes in imports: Vikram said that there seemed to be a significant lack of awareness of the upgrade utilities and the upgrade guide. Pavan chimed in saying that he had seen this too. There was some discussion about how to highlight this better on the docs site or in the UI, without a clear resolution. 
    • Missing UI elements such as UI filters: Brent chimed in saying that these have been identified as Github issues and are in the process of getting resolved. Brent also asked for community help here. 
    • Database size causing long migration times, due to long database upgrade times: Again, something covered in the upgrade guide, with the recommendation to clean up the database before upgrade. 
    • Vikram also said that he has been using the "affected_version:3.0" issue tag to track adoption issues and then with priority. 
    • The ask for the community is to "self-assign" adoption issues before the next meeting.
• Action Items
  • Pierre: Continue React plugin dev tools development
  • Brent: React package requirements optimization after vacation
  • Jarek: Investigate file description issue workarounds for pre-3.13
  • Dennis and Ramit: Finalize deadline alerts implementation
  • Kaxil, et al: Continue TaskSDK / shared code changes
  • Vikram: Clean up the Airflow 3.1 wiki structure and add Augusto Hidalgo to discuss Benchmark updates to next dev call. 
  • Community: Create, tag, and self-assign (if possible) Airflow 3 adoption issues before next dev call

31 July 2025

Proposed Agenda

Attendees

Summary

• Catch-up on action items from last call:
  • Airflow 3.1 Release plan and wiki update (Vikram)
    • Vikram walked the team through the Airflow 3.x wiki page.
    • He said that this was primarily focused on Airflow 3.1 at this time, but intended to be expanded for 3.2 and more in the future
    • Vikram outlined the target dates for release branch, release candidates, with a goal of cutting the GA release the week of September 15th, i.e. about 2 weeks before Airflow Summit. 
    • He said that all the work streams showed good progress, with several getting close to completion. He outlined that there was still a lot of work still to be done on the Task SDK split, but it was making good progress.
    • Vikram said that he was concerned about the UI filters stream of work and requested community help on that front. 
    • Jens asked about the Example DAGs work and Vikram confirmed that he had deliberately not included that in the 3.1 scope because of timing and was targeting that work for the 3.2 release.
• Development Updates
  • AIP-90 Human in the loop update (Wei)
    • Wei had sent a recorded demo of the working functionality from a dev branch.
    • It was amazingly comprehensive, covering the entry operator, the approval operator, and the branch operator.
    • The demo covered both the UI implementation and the API endpoints which could be used for programmatic interaction.
    • Jens confirmed that he had reviewed the PRs and suggested that the AIP was ready for broader UX feedback. 
    • Vikram mentioned that he had spoken with a large Airflow user who was currently using Airflow → Temporal → Airflow as a workaround and was excited for this functionality to eliminate the external dependency.
  • AIP-72 Task Execution Interface aka Task SDK update (Ash and Amogh)
    • Ash covered how the team was working on making the TaskSDK distribution independent of Airflow Core, as well as fixing upgrade blockers such as edge cases and virtual environment connection access. 
    • He mentioned that the key goals for 3.1 were:
      • TaskSDK installable without Airflow Core, and
      • Go SDK complete and ready for use
    • Amogh spoke about the test framework which has now been merged. He said that this now spins up a real Airflow instance to test SDK interface integration with the API server. 
  • Benchmark (AIP-59 Performance tests framework) update (Augusto Hidalgo)
    • Eugene said that Augusto was on vacation, but that the testing framework was running on both Airflow 2.x and Airflow 3, producing results.
    • Vikram asked if Augusto could present at the next dev call or alternatively to share the results async before the next dev call. 
  • AIP-81 Enhanced security in CLI update - airflowctl release planning (Bugra)
    • Bugra covered the detailed test cases created for validating compatibility of airflowctl with Airflow Core 3.1 
    • Bugra said that most bugs were fixed, with one or two open issues. 
    • The proposed release timelines was to start RCs by mid-August, with a target release date of September 1st. 
    • Ash asked the question about compatibility with Airflow 3.0.3 vs. Airflow 3.1, at which point Jarek suggested integrating tests into CI similar to Amogh's work above. 
    • Bugra said the that intention was to deprecate some of the existing CLI commands in the future, to avoid duplication with those commands in airflowctl. 
  • AIP-86 Deadline Alerts update (Dennis, Rajesh, and Ramit)
    • Rajesh said that the team expected to be code complete (for async callbacks) this week. 
    • Dennis confirmed that no UI requirements existed for this AIP, since it was purely a code invocation with notifications. 
    • Dennis confirmed that async callbacks running in the Triggerer were working now and attempted a demo, but the demo gods interfered. 
    • Ramit said that Sync callbacks to be run in the workers would be coming next week. This is similar to the 2.x SLA callback functionality and would be the easiest upgrade path. 
• Discussion Topics
  • Migration blocker issues (Elad)
    • Elad added a label for user-reported upgrade blockers, so that we could easily identify issues preventing 2.x → 3.x upgrades. 
    • Jarek asked the community to help review and give inputs, even if they were unable to code a fix. 
• Action Items
  • Pierre: Request help from the community to work on UI filters (on the dev list and on slack)
  • Augusto Hidalgo: Share performance test results async when back from vacation
  • Dennis / Ramit: Demo the sync callback functionality in the next dev call
  • Community: Review Human-in-the-loop UX and provide feedback
  • Community: Contribute to UI filters work and upgrade blocking issues 

14 August 2025

Proposed Agenda

Attendees

Summary

• Catch-up on action items from last call: None
• Development updates
  • AIP-72 Task Execution Interface aka Task SDK update (Kaxil Naik)
    • Kaxil shared TP had eliminated the Base Operator completely from airflow.models, and that the serialized base / mapped operators were being used exclusively
    • Kaxil also said that the DAG object removal from models is in progress and that he moved to have the big DAG serialization PR out this week, so that all the Task information would be in the serialized DAG version without relying on the shared code.
    • This would then enable the server-client separation and independent deployment upgrades 
    • He said that Ephraim was migrating the airflow exceptions code to appropriate SDK/Core locations 
    • The one blocker for full separation was the shared config parse module. 
  • Benchmark (AIP-59 Performance tests framework) update (Michal Modras)
    • Michal shared the initial benchmark data comparing Airflow 2.10.5 vs. 3.0.0 which was run on a GKE cluster with 4 nodes.
    • Initial performance results for 2 baseline scenarios were positive with Airflow 3.x being significantly faster than Airflow 2.10
    • Michal said that the team would be testing with more scenarios and would publish the testing framework before Airflow Summit 
    • The team was positively surprised by the results and there was significant interest in leveraging the framework as part of RCs and as part of pre-merge checks for complex PRs such as pessimistic vs. optimistic scheduling. 
  • AIP-86 Deadline Alerts update (Dennis, Ramit)
    • Deferred to next dev call
  • Airflow 3.1 test plan update (Rahul)
    • Rahul shared the updated 3.1 test plan and covered the thinking behind it.
    • He explained that the key focus areas were around upgrade / downgrade testing, Human in the loop (since the development there was nearly complete), and the Task SDK decoupling. 
    • Rahul also said that the Task SDK decoupling was of critical priority and needed focus. 
    • Jarek asked about testing of internationalization, which led to the discussion below.
• Discussion topics
  • UI Internationalization release process
    • Following up the 3.1 release testing plan, the team discussed the key steps to releasing the UI internationalization work. 
    • Jens spoke about the earlier discussed policy for this which included a reminder to the dev list about 2 weeks before RC, which would serve as a notice to the language owners to make sure that the translations are up to date before the release. 
    • Shahar volunteered to coordinate between the release manager (Kaxil) and the language owners for the 3.1 release. 
  • Airflow 3 adoption blockers (issues with label priority:upgrade_to_airflow3)
    • There was a good discussion of all the open (around a dozen) issues which were tagged as Airflow 3 upgrade blockers. 
• Action items
  • Shahar: Sync up with Kaxil and send out note to language owners about translation updates and validation
  • Rahul: Update test plan and raise issues with contributors as needed 
  • Michal: Share benchmark framework when ready
  • Vikram: Ping Rajesh, Dennis, et al. about sync SLA callbacks

28 August 2025

Proposed Agenda

Attendees

Summary

• Development Updates and Presentations:
  
  • AIP-72 Task Execution Interface aka Task SDK update (Ash, Kaxil)
    • Kaxil gave a detailed overview of the progress on this including the following highlights.
    • Secrets masker merged. This code is now shared between Task SDK and Airflow core
    • A couple of major PRs are landing this week. Includes: TP's DAG model removal and Kaxil's operator defaults schema changes (expect temporary breakage)
    • Schema defaults implementation is now in place with an updated contract between server/client with precedence hierarchy for defaults
    • A lot of the imports have now been cleaned up. It is 70% complete (12/17 issues merged), led by Ephraim.
    • Handling of the Configuration code in progress, with Amogh moving config to shared library (complex due to widespread usage)
  • AIP-86 Deadline Alerts update (Dennis, Ramit)
    • Dennis gave an overview of the progress, following up from the email to the dev list saying that the Async callbacks are working and will ship in 3.1 as planned. 
    • However, "Sync callbacks" will be delayed to 3.2. 
    • Dennis raised the question about whether the sync callbacks should wait for AIP-92 proposal implementation, since there is a possible conflict on callback architecture with that proposal. 
    • The consensus with the team at the dev call was that Deadline Alert Sync callbacks should continue with the existing design as proposed, rather than waiting for AIP-92. 
    • The action item was for Dennis to update the AIP (for Deadline Alerts) with this current status plus design update, and follow up with a lazy consensus email to the dev list. 
  • Airflow 3.1 test plan update (Rahul)
    • Rahul walked through an update of the 3.1 test plan and said testing was in progress with regression tests running on main and also with feature validation of the scoped AIPs on main. 
    • Rahul also highlighted that there were many open issues which needed to be triaged for the 3.1 milestone and that he was working on Amogh on testing for the import modifications. 
    • Rahul then handed off to Shahar for internationalizations, by saying that the translation owners were taking responsibility for testing their respective translations
  • Language translations update (Shahar)
    • Shahar said that there were would a English freeze a week early to enable translation completion before release
    • Additionally, there would be pre-commit check as enforcement to prevent English changes during the freeze
    • At this point, 4 translations needed committer sponsors (Catalan, Hungarian, Italian, and Portuguese) and the goal was to have 100% translation coverage before 3.1 release. 

11 September 2025

Proposed Agenda

Attendees

Summary

• Development Updates and Presentations:
  • Airflow 3.1 test plan update (Rahul)
    • Rahul shared that the overall testing status was positive across most components. 
    • He shared that the Task SDK regression testing had passed without import issues, the UI filters implementation were tested for audit log and XComm filters, and that the "Human in the loop" feature testing was on track. 
    • Rahul also said that AIP-81 testing ran into authentication issues with token/username-password. Bugra shared that the issue is being investigated and that the current suspicion is that it is environment related. 
    • Rahul was concerned about "UI Plugins" requiring retesting after recent changes by Brent and Pierre. 
    • Rahul also asked Dennis to update the testing status for "Deadline Alerts".
  • Airflow 3.1 beta release update (Kaxil)
    • Kaxil shared that the Airflow 3.1 beta version released earlier in the week did include the two major PRs highlighted in the last dev call i.e. TP's serialized DAG implementation changes and Kaxil's changes for defaults. 
    • As a result of the above, the server-side code now only uses serialized DAGs and Task Groups are decoupled between server and SDK. 
    • Also, migration testing from 2.11 to 3.1 beta has successfully been tested. 
  • Deadline Alerts (Dennis)
    • Dennis shared that async support was being added to Notifiers.
    • He also said that UI aspects were deferred to post 3.1 and that synchronous callbacks were in development, targeted for Airflow 3.2
  • Language translations update (Shahar)
    • Shahar shared that the language translations are at 97% coverage overall and we have been able to add new translations including Catalan and Simplified Chinese. Portuguese and Italian are still in PR, but may still be able to make it before release
    • And that the the translation freeze has been extended until the 3.1 release to get to 100% coverage
    • Amazing work here, I am astonished that we are now up to 14 language translations! 
• Discussion topics:
  • UI plugins recommendation (Pierre)
    • Pierre raised a discussion topic around marking React app plugins as experimental. 
    • Pierre said that the edge provider plugin work by Jens revealed needs for optimization and would probably require changes in build tools and dependency sharing. This would probably only affect very complex UI plugins, but it would be safer at this time to mark this part of the UI plugins work as "experimental". 
    • Based on this recommendation by Pierre and Brent, the team agreed with this recommendation. 
  • Airflow CTL update (Bugra)
    • Bugra said that the first beta was released for "airflow ctl" and that testing was ongoing with limited community interaction to date. 
    • Bugra said that a follow-on release candidate is planned on this, rather than a second beta. 
    • Following on, Bugra created a new AIP to decouple remote commands from the Airflow core CLI, which included a transition approach. 
    • Vikram, Jarek, and Kaxil raised concerns about existing automation dependencies based on the preexisting airflow CLI commands. 
    • Vikram recommended that Bugra delay asking for a vote on this AIP until after the 3.1 release, so that the team has the cognitive capacity to process the changes. 
• Release preparation and related action items:
  • Kaxil asked for the AIP (feature) owners to review the Airflow 3.1 draft release notes. Specifically including:
    • Human in the loop (Wei, et al)
    • Deadline alerts documentation (Dennis / Rajesh):
      • Mention of the async vs. sync differences and what's coming in 3.1 vs. later
      • Migration guide additions to explain the transition from SLA callbacks (in 2.x) to Deadline Alerts in 3.1 
    • UI React plugins documentation (PIerre / Brent):
      • Including what is experimental vs. not
  • Rahul asked Bugra to get back on the "airflow ctl" bugfix and testing
  • Rahul asked Dennis to update the Deadline Alerts testing
  • Vikram asked the team to review and cleanup the priority blocker issues (issues with label priority:upgrade_to_airflow3) and the 3.1 blocking issues
  • Elad asked Dennis to confirm what was needed for Notifier provider release in conjunction with the 3.1 release

23 October 2025

Proposed Agenda

Attendees

Summary

• Development Updates and Presentations:
  • Airflow 3.1.1 patch release update (Kaxil Naik)
    • Kaxil outlined that the 3.1.1 RC2 was cut earlier in the day and he expected 3.1.1 to be generally available on Monday next week.
    • Kaxil also said that he planned to cut the 3.1.2 RC1 before the end of October. Kaxil will be taking leave for a few weeks after that and Ephraim will be cutting the following patch releases. 
  • Airflow 2.11.1 patch release update (Jarek Potiuk)
    • Jarek spoke that this was primarily driven by a need to fix a key CVE and that he had to change a key dependency, but the tests were now working
    • Jarek said this would be a combined Airflow 2.11.1 and Fab provider 1.5.4 release
    • RC1 is planned for community testing, since this addresses multiple CVEs in dependencies. 
    • Jens offered to help with testing support. 
• Discussion topics 
  • Feedback from users about project at Airflow Summit
    • Vikram asked the team to share the feedback they had heard from the Summit regarding any Airflow 3 adoption challenges or critical issues
    • Amogh went first saying that he was folks had raised issues with niche use cases - primarily when they were leveraging the Airflow meta database directly for temporary data storage and therefore the lack of direct DB access was a blocker in Airflow 3 adoption. 
    • Vikram spoke about how we had told users in the past that they could work around this by explicitly defining a database connection to the Postgres database and using it explicitly, rather than implicitly through the Airflow internal interfaces, but also added that he wasn't sure if it was documented anywhere. Amogh said that he wasn't aware of that expressed solution and would create a Github issue to make sure it was documented. There was a larger discussion around this, including that users could leverage the published APIs (going through the API server) for this capability now. 
    • Dheeraj spoke about the issues his team at Qualcomm had faced in their upgrade. This was following up on his earlier email to the dev list and said that they had faced the issue above as well and had worked around it as expressed above. 
    • Dheeraj also raised the issue that the import changes were annoying, and that the Qualcomm team was not aware of the Ruff based utilities for upgrades. There was significant discussion around this as well and if this was a point in time issue with the early 3.0 builds. Ash asked Dheeraj if he could retry this with Airflow 3.1, since there was so much compatibility work done to keep the imports working and Dheeraj agreed to get back on this.
    • Dheeraj also said that there were several UI challenges around performance and a couple around navigation. Specifically, slow to load large DAGs, to list lots of DAGs, and log scrolling for large files. Also, viewing the UI from a mobile phone was problematic in 3 as compared to 2.x.  Brent and Pierre said that there were performance improvements in 3.1.1, but work was in flight around this. 
    • Dheeraj also said that very large DAG files i.e. with 23,000+ tasks were choking the DAG file processor. Kaxil asked Dheeraj to open a Github issue around this. 
  • Devlist followup on focusing on adoption issues 
    • Vikram asked the team if there were any objections to the proposal shared on the devlist to devote the next month i.e. mid-Oct to mid-Nov towards focusing on Airflow 3 adoption issues instead of significant new development. There were no objections to this.
    • Vikram then summarized that he would add this focus area to the Airflow wiki and that we could release a set of patch releases over the next four weeks to address these issues. 
    • Vikram also said that the logical timing for Airflow 3.2 would be to start development in earnest in mid-Nov, with a target release of March 2026, accounting for the holidays in late November and late December. There was general consensus. 
  • Why more providers needed ? Unknown User (potiuk) - deferred because of lack of time

6 November 2025

Proposed Agenda

Attendees

Summary

• Catch-up on action items from last call:
  • DAG import issues (Dheeraj)
    • Dheeraj said that he had re-tested the upgrade process and that the RUFF based utilities had significantly improved DAG compatibility from Airflow 2 to Airflow 3, when run with autofix, with over 50% of all the DAGs successfully parsed with Airflow 3, without needing manual changes. 
    • Dheeraj went to to say that the remaining issues requiring manual fixes were with: 
      • airflow.utils days_ago method,
      • DB create session no longer being available, because of direct database access removal
      • Simple HTTP Operator deprecation and Bash Operator being moved 
    • Dheeraj's summary was that the migration timeline after using the utilities would be about 3-4 days to achieve 80-90% DAG compatibility
    • The only remaining issue in his mind was UI performance, where it seemed that there was a noticeable slowdown as compared to Airflow 2.x
    • This report raised a fair amount of questions and discussion in the meeting itself. It was very helpful for the rest of the team to hear Dheeraj's feedback!

• Development Updates and Presentations:
  • Airflow 3.1.x patch release update (Ephraim Anierobi)
    • Ephraim said that 3.1.2 had been released successfully.
    • Jarek reported that there was one issue reported right after about disappearing logs which may be critical and require a follow-on patch release. 
    • Rahul chimed in to say that this log issue was reproducible and a fix had also been identified and tested. 
    • There was agreement that this may require a 3.1.3 very soon, instead of waiting for the 2 week release cycle.
    • This is currently scheduled for this week and added to the Airflow 3.x wiki page
  • UI performance issues (Pierre Jeambrun)
    • Pierre reported that a number of N+1 query problems had been identified, were being resolved, and guard rails being put in place. The root cause was serialization layer lazy-loading relationships in loops. 
    • Pierre also referenced an issue that had identified missing indexes as a source of slowness and this was being resolved by new index creation. Vikram raised his concern that new index creation could cause issues in the "DB migration" part of an Airflow upgrade. Ash concurred with the concern and proposed a solution to make index creation part of the API server/ Scheduler startup rather than as part of the migration. 
    • Brent added that the Grid view performance remains challenging and that additional optimization work was being planned after the N+1 fixes were complete. 
    • There was also discussion about FastAPI configuration changes because of scaling differences from the Flask approach. This triggered a need for updating the documentation to recommend scaling approach recommendations. 
  • Auth issues (Vincent Beck)
    • Vincent reported that issues related to Auth were being resolved and that he had taken this on at Vikram's request. 
  • Expanding Task SDK Integration test framework with more tests (Amogh)
    • There was a quick ask for help from Amogh requesting community contributions to the Task SDK integration test framework. 
    • Amogh said that the complexity was higher than previous efforts and may require a SIG on slack for coordination. 
• Discussion topics:
  • Issue triage process (Vikram)
    • Vikram followed up on his email summary of issues sent to the dev list earlier, saying that the "needs triage" label was applied to 73 of the 284 open issues related to Airflow 3. And that this still seemed to be applied even after a PR had been created to address the issue. 
    • Jarek chimed in to say that this was unintentional and that at least he himself often forgot to assign or remove labels during the review process. 
    • Vikram proposed adoption of issues into logical swim lanes, with volunteer owners for those lanes such as:
      • Auth issues: Vincent leading
      • UI / API issues: Pierre and Brent leading
      • Data aware scheduling: TP and Wei leading
      • Edge Worker: Jens leading
    • There was some discussion around this with senior contributors such as Ash, saying that they look at everything, not based on individual areas. However, Vincent and Jens chimed in saying that this would be useful for them to focus attention. Brent chimed in saying that sometimes issues were mislabeled with the UI tag, but that was solvable by reassigning the UI-labelled issues post-initial triage. 
    • An aspiring contributor commented that these swim lane labels would also be useful for issues tagged with "Good first issue", so that they could pick something to work on based on their own skills and interests. 
    • Elad pointed out that this needs to be tried out in practice and if it works, also applied to PRs, since there are many PRs sitting waiting for approval. At this point, we have hit a record of 343 open PRs in the project! 
  • Thoughts on how to document DB access options in Airflow 3 upgrade docs (Amogh)
    • Amogh said that the Database access options topic had raised a lot of discussion on the PR. 
    • As a result, Amogh started a dev list discussion and was looking for input. Based on that, a lazy consensus would be started middle of next week. 

20 November 2025

Proposed Agenda

Attendees

Summary

• Catch-up on action items from last call:
  • Swim lane issue / PR tracking update (Unknown User (vikramkoka) )
    • Vikram shared the output from the automated script he had created for tracking all open issues and PRs.
    • Using the 3.0 release date as a starting point, there are 308 open issues and 325 open PRs. 
    • Core Airflow had about 200 open issues out of which the UI and API swim lane had a third of all open issues and PRs.
    • Helm Chart had 18 open issues and 14 open PRs. 
    • Dev tools (including CI) had a surprisingly high number (34) of open PRs. 
    • Providers had about a quarter of the overall, but not yet classified in detail, because of a script bug.
    • Vikram also added that he would be updating the 3.x page with the updated swim lane information including metrics, and the swim lane leads. 
    • Vikram asked for volunteers to fill out the swim lane leads for areas which are backlogged.
    • Jens said that he would take the lead on Helm Chart, after chatting with Jed since Jed was now back from leave. 
    • Jarek suggested that "draft PRs" be excluded from the counts. 
    • Shahar asked about more detailed labels and leveraging the issue bot, but Vikram said that the issue bot was currently often wrong, requiring manual re-tagging. 
• Development Updates and Presentations:
  • Airflow 3.1.x patch release update (Unknown User (ephraimanierobi) )
    • Ephraim said that Core Airflow 3.1.3 was released last week
    • Ephraim added that 3.1.4 was planned for the first week of December, adding that it was originally targeted for a week earlier, but wanted to avoid Good Friday week. 
    • Jarek added that this was likely the last release before Christmas / New Year. 
    • Bugra added that airflowctl patch release dependencies were being resolved and that a new release candidate was being created. 
  • UI performance issues (Unknown User (pierrejeambrun)  / Unknown User (bbovenzi) )
    • Pierre said that the N+1 query issues were resolved and that the fixes were released as part of 3.1.3 
    • Pierre went on to say that the next priorities included adding missing indexes for sorting/filtering and that these needed to be configurable since the criteria could be different across user organizations. 
    • Brent added that additional work would be needed for View specific enhancements, such as Grid View performance enhancements. 
    • There was also a question raised about documenting guidance for the deployment of API servers for scale. 
  • AI-generated PR management strategy 
    • Vikram asked the question for the UI team about how many of the generated PRs (since the UI had the largest number of PR contributions) were AI-generated and if there were any quality issues
    • Brent responded that the PRs ranged from AI-assisted good PRs to very low-effort PRs which hadn't had enough thought behind them. 
    • Pierre said that his approach was to match the review effort to the contribution effort i.e. spend very little time reviewing low-effort PRs and just give high level feedback for obviously AI-generated PRs, so that time wasn't wasted.
    • Overall the team felt that they were spending a disproportionate amount of time reviewing poor quality PRs. 
    • Jarek said that ASF suggests (but does not mandate) disclosure of LLM usage in contributions
    • This led to a discussion on needing to update the contributing guide to reflect expectations on AI usage in the PR creation process. Ash took that action item to update the contributing guide. 
• Discussion topics:
  
  • Why more providers needed ? Unknown User (potiuk)
    • Jarek raised the challenge of increasing provider breadth, by saying that despite incoming requests for additional providers and people willing to contribute providers, we were limited by maintainer capacity. Jarek said that he had collaborated on a proposal with Vikram and others and would like to see this proposal move forward.
    • Vikram described the proposal for new providers as follows:
      • An Incubation step for new providers, then proceeding to "mainstream / production, and then to "attic / deprecation" if no longer being used
      • Contributors would need to take ownership responsibility for maintenance. 
      • Similar to the issue / PR metrics for core Airflow above, we would track and publish metrics around open issues, PR reviews, CVE fixes per provider 
      • Special case handling for mature, stable providers such as Slack. 
      • This process would be similar to how we handle translations with Shahar leading translations as a committer, but with individuals taking ownership for the actual creation and maintenance. 
      • We would continue to have only Apache Airflow committers as people who can merge, similar to translations. 
    • Radu (from Vespa) said that they wished to contribute an Airflow provider. Radu went on to say that the shared ownership model described earlier would be mutually beneficial and that they would be incentivized to maintain their contribution, so that their users have a good experience
    • Vikram to update the AIP and send out a follow-up to the dev list
  • Multi-team to be aimed for 3.2 or 3.3 release (Vincent BECK )
    • Vincent wasn't at the meeting, but Niko chimed to say that they would like to target portions of the multi-team AIP for 3.2, with other elements following on in 3.3. 
    • Vikram asked about the status of the Deadline Alerts AIP, and Niko said that the remainder of the Notifier improvements were planned for 3.2
    • There will be a significant portion of the next dev call (on Dec 4th) dedicated to 3.2 scope planning. 

4 December 2025

Proposed Agenda

Attendees

Summary

• Development Updates
  • Airflow 3.1.4 patch release update (Ephraim Anierobi)
    • Ephraim shared that the 3.1.4 patch release had around 47 bug fixes, with a total of around 183 pull requests. 
    • Key fixes included task clearing race conditions in backfills when multiple schedulers are active, deadline alert handling, local executor memory leaks and N+1 query improvements. 
    • There are also several UI improvements including task highlighting in the graph view and mobile layout. 
  • Task SDK / Shared libraries update (Amogh Desai)
    • Amogh said that the "shared library" effort is nearly complete now with 7 libraries identified for decoupling Task SDK from Airflow Core. 
    • Out of these seven, five have already been completed and merged. The two remaining are for traces/metrics and listeners. 
    • Amogh and Jarek gave a shoutout to Christos for the work here! 
  • UI E2E Testing framework update (Rahul Vats)
    • Rahul shared that the playwright based framework PR for testing was merged and that CI work is in progress to trigger these tests for UI changes. 
    • Rahul said that he had created a meta issue containing all the test scenarios organized by page and that the plan was to focus on critical flows and recent UI issues such as pagination. 
    • Rahul asked for community contributions here and was considering a phased rollout. 
• Discussion Topics
  • Providers documented release plan (Jens Scheffler / Jarek Potiuk)
    • Jens said he had created a draft release for providers in Confluence to help coordinate the work between release managers.
    • Jens said that it currently covered Provider releases and could be expanded to others.
    • Jens asked where the Core Airflow releases were documented and Vikram shared that they were documented in the Airflow 3.x wiki page, but was out of date for the 3.1.4 page
    • Jens also asked if there were any objections to moving the provider releases from Thursday to Tuesday to facilitate easier validation on weekdays instead of weekends. The release managers agreed to this. 
  • Helm chart scope and strategy (Jens, Jarek, Jed) 
    • There was a quick reference to the dev list email about dropping support for Airflow 1 in the helm chart and that there would be a lazy consensus follow up to the same
    • There was much longer discussion on the overall scope of the Helm chart, including changes for the embedded database support in the helm chart. There also was a reference to potentially adopting Kustomize as a way to simplify the chart and to extend it for edge cases using Kustomize. There was no immediate agreement here, other than to continue the discussion async on the dev list.  
  • Airflow 3.2 potential scope 
    • Vikram started the discussion saying that it would be good to get an overall scope and plans together for 3.2 release with the target timeline of March 2026. 
    • Vikram also added that Daniel Standish had updated the Asset Partitions AIP with the focus on 3.2. 
    • Vincent added that the multi-team work was progressing and that they would be targeting an experimental release in time for 3.2 to enable user testing and feedback, with a goal of an official release in Airflow 3.3 later in the year. 
    • Rajesh added that Dennis was actively working on the Deadline Alerts sync callback work with a target of 3.2 release.
    • The team noted that there were several large AIPs being discussed and that we need to get some formal scope and planning together in order to identify the interactions between these AIPs. Vikram took the action item to ask and help these AIP authors formalize scope and timelines. 
  • Rookie awards vote (Srabasti)
    • Vikram said that Srabasti Banerjee had wanted to remind the team to vote for the "new budding contributor" awards on the dev list before the deadline.

18 December 2025

Proposed Agenda

• 17 July 2025
  • Proposed Agenda
  • Attendees
  • Summary
• 31 July 2025
  • Proposed Agenda
  • Attendees
  • Summary
• 14 August 2025
  • Proposed Agenda
  • Attendees
  • Summary
• 28 August 2025
  • Proposed Agenda
  • Attendees
  • Summary
• 11 September 2025
  
  • Proposed Agenda
  • Attendees
  • Summary
• 23 October 2025
  • Proposed Agenda
  • Attendees
  • Summary
• 6 November 2025
  • Proposed Agenda
  • Attendees
  • Summary
• 20 November 2025
  • Proposed Agenda
  • Attendees
  • Summary
• 4 December 2025
  • Proposed Agenda
  • Attendees
  • Summary
• 18 December 2025
  • Proposed Agenda
  • Meeting cancelled 
• 15 January 2026
  • Proposed Agenda

8 May 2025

Proposed Agenda

Attendees

Summary

• Development Updates:
  • Update on the 3.0.1 release Unknown User (kaxilnaik) 
    • Kaxil mentioned that over 200 commits are part of 3.0.1 RC1 including many usability improvements.
    • He said that the voting for RC1 ends on Monday, the 12th of May. 
    • Jarek added that we would probably need an RC2 because of the inclusion of an older version of an Amazon provider. 
  • 2.11 release scope / timing Unknown User (kaxilnaik) 
    • Kaxil mentioned that the decision between 2.11 vs. 2.10.x was made because of several features and changes in the 2.x branch, which meant beyond a patch. 
    • Specifically, he mentioned the new Timetable addition as well as the PR for making sure that the metrics are aligned for consistent reporting. 
    • Another reason for the feature release was also to add support for "airflow config lint" which enables validation of the airflow configuration before upgrading to Airflow 3. 
• Discussion Topics:
  • 3.0 release feedback / discussion topics (All)
    • Vikram shared a quick update on the Airflow downloads by version over the last two weeks since Airflow 3 was released. 
    • Vikram highlighted that Airflow 3 has seen significant adoption with about 7.5% of the total Airflow downloads. The highest downloaded version continues to be 2.10, which is the last release on the 2.x release stream, with about a third of all downloads. Of course, these metrics should be taken with the usual grain of salt, because they are susceptible to image caching and CI processes.
    • Elad asked where features "missing" in Airflow 3 were documented. Vikram said that these were documented as breaking changes within the Upgrading to Airflow 3 doc. The team identified a couple of missing elements, which Elad volunteered to add. 
    • Jarek said that there was significant user confusion around upgrading to 3.0 with respect to DAG writing practices, specifically around imports. After much discussion, the conclusion was that one of the core problems here was the UX around doc versions on the website, being too subtle and not obvious to users about the differences between 2.x and 3.0 syntax. The action item for Jarek and Elad was to look at the docs UX to see if this could be made more obvious.
  • 3.1 release scope / timing discussion Unknown User (vikramkoka)  
    • In the follow-up discussion about the scope of 3.1, Vikram explained that the Airflow 3.1 scope was largely based on user feedback of 3.0 including the prior discussion about missing features.
    • The early draft of Airflow 3.1 scope is documented on the wiki for discussion. 
    • Vikram mentioned that Dennis couldn't make the call today, but asked for reviews on his PR which was early work towards Deadline Alerts, which replaces SLA alerts in Airflow 2.x and is currently scoped for Airflow 3.1. Rajesh added that he was confident with the timing, since Dennis and others were actively working on this and would be ready to update the team in two weeks' time.  
    • Jarek raised the question a
    • Other language support
    • Ash shared an update on the Go SDK. He shared a link to the branch with the draft incarnation and said that a PR would be coming soon. 
    • Vikram shared an update with the early Java SDK branch. Jens chimed in referencing the offline discussion with Vikram around leveraging the Edge API for these other languages.
    • The action item was for Jens, Ash, Kaxil, and Vikram to discuss async on any changes needed to the Edge provider. 
    • Ash raised a concern that we may not see significant adoption until the DAGs were in other languages as well. Elad and Jarek argued against the viewpoint feeling that a single task in a different language would be very powerful for application integration. Elad said that "The notion of executing a task directly without a wrapper DAG is a request I hear from time to time (already)". 
  • FAB upgrades (4.6.2 first, 5.0.0 later) Unknown User (potiuk) 
    • Jarek raised the FAB upgrade issue which we had deferred a couple of months ago to post 3.0. He said that we are in a much better situation now, but that he needed help with the SqlAlchemy migrations and would follow up on the dev list. 
    • As part of this conversation, there was a discussion about dropping support for Python 3.9 early. However, there was no appetite for that from the attendees because of all the complexity around doing this selectively for Core Airflow vs. Providers. This was going to be conveyed back to the dev list discussion by Jens.
  • Example DAGS Unknown User (jscheffl)  Unknown User (potiuk) 
    • Jens and Jarek brought up the issue with the Example DAGs which have grown to the point of having become too confusing, because they are used for two different purposes: One for developers testing Airflow before release, and second for users to learn how to use Airflow. 
    • There was clear agreement on separating the examples for those two use cases and Jarek was going to take the lead on that. 
    • Jens was going to take the lead on making the true end user example DAGs more useful with a story telling concept for a broad use case.  
      • UPDATE:
        • Planning Page: Examples Refurbish
        • Discussion in Slack: #sig-examples 
  • Continuing dev calls
    • Vikram suggested that we make these dev calls every two weeks going forward, rather than weekly.
    • There was immediate agreement on this. 
• Action items:
  • Airflow docs UX update to make versions more obvious (Elad, Jarek)
  • Update on Deadline Alerts AIP progress and Github board (Dennis, Rajesh)
  • Edge executor for other languages (Jens, Ash, Kaxil, Vikram)
  • Update devlist about no-go on Python 3.9 early drop support (Jens)
  • Get help on SqlAlchemy upgrade changes (Jarek)
  • Example Dags update (Jens, Jarek)
  • Make dev calls to be every two weeks (Vikram)

22 May 2025

Proposed Agenda

Attendees

Summary

• Catch-up on action items from last call:
  • Docs site update (Elad, Jarek)
    • Elad said that they could not make much progress on the Docs site update over the last couple of weeks, but would have an update by the next dev call. 
    • Jarek added that there has been significant improvements to the Doc publishing process, led by Pavan.
    • The team agreed with that and gave a shoutout to Pavan, Jarek, and everyone who had contributed to these improvements. 
  • Example Dags update (Jens, Jarek)
    • Jens talked about the small team who have gathered together to start working on improvements to the Example DAGs.
    • Jens shared the wiki page which was being used to track these ideas. 
    • There was a discussion around whether "testing DAGs" are useful to end users and if they should be tagged as "dual use" to reflect that they can be used as an example.
• Development Updates:
  • Deadline alerts AIP-85 (Dennis Ferruzzi, Rajesh B)
    • Dennis and Ramit gave an update on Deadline alerts which included a long, in-depth technical discussion around the implementation options. 
    • There was significant discussion around where the loop to check for alerts should be run as well as where the dag-level callbacks should be run. 
    • The view from the team was that system monitoring i.e. if the scheduler is down is out of scope for this effort and should be done outside of Airflow, i.e. if Schedulers (or Workers) are down, no SLAs would be fired. 
    • After the extended discussion, the summary was that we aligned on a variation of option 1 from the email, with the following elements:
      • Scheduler loop would be used for checking SLA misses
      • If an async notifier is specified, the callback would be run in the triggerer
      • If a sync notifier is specified, the callback would be run on a worker
      • We recommend async callbacks using the builtin Airflow async notifiers
  • Update on the 3.0.x and 2.11 releases Unknown User (kaxilnaik) 
    • Kaxil mentioned that we released 3.0.1 and 2.11 already and that we would be cutting 3.0.2 in about two weeks.
• Discussion Topics:
  • UI Internationalization
    • Brent shared that we had just merged a PR to support internationalization in the UI.
    • There was a lot of excitement around this. 
    • There was an early discussion on what terms should NOT be translated such as "DAG" or "Xcom".
    • This was to be followed up offline.
  • Golang SDK
    • Ash shared that he had raised a PR for an early incarnation of the Golang Task SDK and requested feedback. 
  • Airflow 3 feedback:
    • Pavan shared that he was at the Astronomer roadshow in London the day before and the feedback from people was very positive. 
    • Quote: "People are amazed with Airflow 3 features, dag versioning, Event driven scheduling. everyone looking to upgrade AF3, that's what i hear at least from the people i met :)"

5 June 2025

Proposed Agenda

Attendees

Summary

• Catch-up on action items from last call:
  • Docs site update (Jarek)
    • Jarek shared a quick, AI generated view of what an updated version selection UI could look like on the docs site. 
    • Jarek also articulated an idea of showing a banner (either left or top) to highlight which Airflow version was being viewed at the moment. 
    • Vikram brought up a point of possibly only showing the major.minor versions of docs, not showing the full list of patch versions as well, to avoid an overwhelming list of choices.
    • Vikram also brought up the issue of the Airflow Core version vs. Task SDK Version. Ash said that most of the docs would probably end up associated with the TaskSDK version, but we weren't there yet. 
    • Jens highlighted that we need to be careful to not overwhelm an initial user with the internal Airflow complexity. 
    • Ended the discussion with a desire to get feedback from UX perspectives, before proceeding forward.
• Development Updates and Presentations
  • UI plugins - Pierre
    • Pierre gave a quick update regarding the status of the UI plugins AIP. 
    • The first kind of plugins being worked on are the iframe plugins and the front-end will take care of rendering them. Templates can be used here with attributes including elements as TaskID and DagID, so that the display can show the context. 
    • The second kind of plugins will be to support React plugins. Additionally, Brent is thinking about dev tools to facilitate the creation of these plugins. 
    • All of this is aimed for 3.1 and quite confident on timing. 
    • Jens raised the question of whether these should initially be marked as "experimental", so that we have the flexibility to change the interface based on initial feedback. 
  • Deadline Alerts - Dennis
    • Dennis raised a database design question for the team encountered during the development of the AIP.
    • Specifically whether to only keep the list of deadline alerts to be checked in the database table, or to keep historical records (such as deadlines met or not met) as well. The point was regarding the performance impact of keeping more data vs. the benefits of keeping this information. 
    • Pierre raised the point that keeping more than "currently in flight" deadlines would be useful from a UI/UX perspective.
    • Dennis was wondering if an index would be sufficient to mitigate performance. Ramit suggested using a view and Vikram suggested that in the worst case, you could have a separate table.  
    • After some discussion, the action item was for Dennis to make the decision using tests / benchmarks based on expected sizes. 
  • Internationalization - Shahar
    • Shahar presented the proposed internationalization policy to address challenges with maintaining translations across 300 languages with only 70 committers. 
    • Shahar mentioned that German, Polish, Dutch, and Mandarin translations have already been merged.
    • And that, Hebrew and Arabic translations are pending review.
    • The presentation covered details such as assigning two roles for each locale: a translation owner responsible for language aspects and a code owner handling technical aspects, with translation sponsors to potentially be non-committers. 
    • It also referenced a process for release managers to notify code owners about missing translation items as part of cutting the release. 
    • The release process impact and timing prompted significant discussion with the team expressing concerns about increasing the burden on release managers. 
    • Jarek suggested starting the release process a week earlier to help accomplish this.
    • Shahar explained that the fallback policy was to use English when terms are not translated, but this raised UX concerns. 
    • The team agreed to limit the number of languages to start with to reduce overhead and implement a system for periodic reminders about missing translations. 
    • Shahar took the action item to follow up with potential refinements to reduce release friction.

26 June 2025

Proposed Agenda

Attendees

Summary

• Catch-up on action items from last call:
  • Docs site update (Jarek)
    • Jarek mentioned that there is an issue created for the work here.
    • The docs build process is a lot better now because of the work led by Pavan, but the actual result still needs work.
    • Jarek also spoke with Kamil about the original work done on the docs site and his availability to help. 
  • Update regarding internationalization impact on release process (Shahar)
    • Shahar said there isn't any change to the process from prior discussions. 
    • The expectation is for the Release Manager to announce that we will cut a new release and that serves as a notification for the code owner to finish translation by a particular date. 
    • The medium term intent is to publish translations outside of "Core Airflow". The initial concept here is to have translations released similar to provider releases and not to be tied to the core Airflow software release. This could be just a file release or even a data update to the database, to be figured out. 
    • There was a lot of enthusiasm from the team about how this project has happened so quickly and all the community involvement here. 
• Development Updates and Presentations (Please keep the updates to less than 10 minutes):
  • UI Plugins Update (Brent, Pierre)
    • Brent and Pierre did a quick demo of the UI plugins work and shared the progress to date. 
    • This included the common abstraction for the UI plugin regardless if the UI should be in a new tab or an iFrame rendering
    • The team was enthusiastic about the great progress here.
  • Deadline Alerts: Update on conclusion for database tradeoff (Dennis)
    • Ramit shared that the development completion target for Deadline alerts is the end of July
    • Ramit also shared that right now when a DAG is created with a deadline alert, the deadline would be created and stored in the database
    • The scheduler loop change work is upcoming and the database change approach will be figured out as part of that. 
    • Brent asked about needing to sync on the API endpoints for the same. Dennis to sync with Brent over the course of the next week.
• Discussion topics:
  • Multi-team discussion from dev list - (Jarek)
    • There was long spirited discussion around the multi-team effort. Jarek opened by asking for comments. 
    • Vikram went first, saying that he wanted to make sure that we were not trading off the simplicity of Airflow starter experience for individual data engineers with the complexity needed for large organizations wanting granular operational procedures. Vikram asserted that as an open source project, viral adoption has been the key to Airflow's success and that simplicity was important to maintain and in fact make better. 
    • Jarek immediately agreed with that assertion and said that was a key point in his desire to also simplify this AIP to multi-team, from the original, far more complex, multi-tenancy proposal. 
    • Vikram also said that he was surprised by the lack of reference to AIP-82 Event driven scheduling, since this was such a commonly used mechanism for segmenting Airflow deployments across teams from a ownership perspective, following classic distributed system principles. 
    • Jens also chimed in saying that we should perhaps articulate this better in the context of how to set up Airflow for large enterprises. 
    • There was a significant level of debate around the complexity vs. simplicity tradeoff, with Rajesh stating this is probably the most common requirement that MWAA hears from their customers. Niko also chimed in saying that we should be willing to accept some tradeoffs to simplicity. 
    • There was a further discussion on what needs in priority order needed to addressed here, with Kaxil raising the point that this raised significant operational considerations and he wanted to make sure that we were not getting in over our skis in complexity with quota management, etc. 
    • This ran out of time without an explicit decision in the meeting itself.
    • Jarek concluded by asking people to comment back in the AIP soon, so that feedback could be addressed in writing. 
  • Call for actions ...ah.. review! Example Dags! (Jens)
    • Jens raised a "call for action", asking people to help review the work on the Example DAGs and to contribute

3 July 2025

Proposed Agenda

Attendees

Summary

• Catch-up on action items from last call:
  • None
• Development updates and presentations: 
  • Airflow 3 adoption (Vikram)
    • Vikram shared that the download numbers show encouraging signs of 3.0 adoption, with about 12% of all downloads for the last month being for 3.0 placing it in third place, with 2.10 in the lead with 29% and 2.6 (still puzzling) in second place with 16%.  
    • Vikram also noted that 2.11 which was released after 3.0 is at 5% of downloads, which showed that more people were willing to go to 3.0 directly from earlier 2.x versions. 
    • Jens noted that it was still a very good thing that we had released 2.11, since 5% of people had upgraded to it from earlier 2.x versions, presumably because they were not yet ready to upgrade to 3.0. 
    • The team noted that for several organizations there were a couple of functional gaps, notably UI Plugins and "run as user" which blocked the upgrade to 3.0. Amogh responded that "run as user" is available as part of Airflow 3.0.3.
    • Vikram noted that the two big known gaps i.e. UI plugins and Deadline Alerts are targeted for the 3.1 release.
    • The team noted that we should make an effort to clean up any such small blockers in the 3.1 release. 
    • The ask for the community is to please highlight such gaps encountered in the dev list or the Airflow 3 dev slack channel. 
  • CLI update (Bugra)
    • Bugra walked through the Github project for this AIP as well as the current status of the work. 
    • Bugra stated that the project would be ready to be integrated into the release process in a couple of weeks.
    • Bugra also volunteered to help in the release process as needed. Jarek pointed out that some additional work may be needed around tests as part of getting ready for release. 
  • Airflow 3.1 update (Vikram)
    • Vikram shared the overall scope and timing of the Airflow 3.1 release as documented on the wiki page. 
    • The one area of significant discussion was the Human in the loop as detailed below.
• Discussion topics:
  • Human in the loop
    • Jens started the discussion here by pushing for the Human in the loop feature to be built and released as a separate provider, not within the standard provider package.
    • Kaxil vocally advocated for this to be in Core Airflow for simplicity and walked through the initial PR created by Wei to illustrate his rationale. 
    • Jarek vehemently agreed with Kaxil. 
    • Pierre also agreed with Kaxil, saying that he would prefer UI plugins to be only used by users, not by us as Airflow contributors. 
    • This then led to the discussion that we have gone too far with the Provider separation from Core Airflow. Jed brought up the point that he would like to get the Executors out of the Providers into a different package. 
    • The discussion ended with the decision to make the "core" Human in the loop functionality as part of Core Airflow. 
  • Code sharing discussion (Ash)
    • The prior discussion also led to the code sharing discussion between Task SDK and Core Airflow, following the thread brought up by Ash in the dev list. 
    • This was a great discussion with a lot of participation from everyone on the call. 
    • Ash to summarize this.

17 July 2025

Proposed Agenda

Attendees

Summary

• Catch-up on action items from last call:
  • None
• Development Updates
  • UI Plugins Update (Pierre and Brent)
    • Pierre shared that the React plugins implementation is nearly complete, including embedded web applications now working inside the Airflow UI. 
    • Pierre also said that key technical challenges have been resolved including react library sharing between plugins and Airflow Core.
    • Pierre raised one issue which had been open about where to keep the CLI/Python scripts to bootstrap React project. Based on team feedback, it was resolved to have those live within dev-tools. 
    • Brent gave a quick demo of the React plugins working in the Airflow UI
    • Outstanding work on this stream before the 3.1 release includes documentation and examples to demonstrate both iFrame and React app integration, as well as CSS fine-tuning for wider screen layouts. 
  • Task SDK Update (Kaxil, Ash, and Amogh)
    • Kaxil shared that multiple parallel work streams are active right now for this AIP
    • Ash is prototyping the common object sharing approaches (symlink vs. rendering). 
    • Utility code migration is happening based on that to appropriate locations (task SDK vs. shared). Serialization structure changes are also being done to support this. 
    • The Core Operator cleanup is happening, largely based on TP's work. Base Operator is now removed from Airflow models. Similar removal planned for Map operator and other core Operators. 
    • Branch Operator bug identified and is being addressed. 
  • Python 3.13 (Jarek)
    • Jarek shared that Python 3.13 is now available for all users and gave a quick demo of the same. 
    • Jarek also said that the Flask Application Builder (FAB) dependency has now been moved and a truly FAB-less Python 3.13 deployment is possible. 
    • Jarek also shared that Python 3.13 fixed a long-standing file description duplication bug. This bug could explain the recent "too many files open" issues in supervisor tasks. 
  • Deadline Alerts Update (Ramit and Rajesh)
    • Ramit shared that he had done performance testing on different approaches using a standalone Python script on Postgres, with 10 million rows. 
    • He tested 3 approaches: Two separate tables, view-based single table, and indexed single table. 
    • The index approach (state + deadline time) had the best performance and therefore led to the implementation approach of adding a state column to the deadlines tables. 
    • Ramit also shared that async callbacks would be run on the triggerer and synchronous callbacks on the workers. 
    • Rajesh shared that the deadline detection code is nearly complete, with the Slack and SMTP notifiers being implemented as async functions. Documentation is also in progress, with an estimated dev completion in about 2 weeks. 
    • There were questions around performance considerations and running under scale. 
• Discussion Topics
  • Airflow 3 adoption blockers
    • Vikram started the discussion with the commonly raised blockers that he had seen or been asked about:
    • Changes in imports: Vikram said that there seemed to be a significant lack of awareness of the upgrade utilities and the upgrade guide. Pavan chimed in saying that he had seen this too. There was some discussion about how to highlight this better on the docs site or in the UI, without a clear resolution. 
    • Missing UI elements such as UI filters: Brent chimed in saying that these have been identified as Github issues and are in the process of getting resolved. Brent also asked for community help here. 
    • Database size causing long migration times, due to long database upgrade times: Again, something covered in the upgrade guide, with the recommendation to clean up the database before upgrade. 
    • Vikram also said that he has been using the "affected_version:3.0" issue tag to track adoption issues and then with priority. 
    • The ask for the community is to "self-assign" adoption issues before the next meeting.
• Action Items
  • Pierre: Continue React plugin dev tools development
  • Brent: React package requirements optimization after vacation
  • Jarek: Investigate file description issue workarounds for pre-3.13
  • Dennis and Ramit: Finalize deadline alerts implementation
  • Kaxil, et al: Continue TaskSDK / shared code changes
  • Vikram: Clean up the Airflow 3.1 wiki structure and add Augusto Hidalgo to discuss Benchmark updates to next dev call. 
  • Community: Create, tag, and self-assign (if possible) Airflow 3 adoption issues before next dev call

31 July 2025

Proposed Agenda

Attendees

Summary

• Catch-up on action items from last call:
  • Airflow 3.1 Release plan and wiki update (Vikram)
    • Vikram walked the team through the Airflow 3.x wiki page.
    • He said that this was primarily focused on Airflow 3.1 at this time, but intended to be expanded for 3.2 and more in the future
    • Vikram outlined the target dates for release branch, release candidates, with a goal of cutting the GA release the week of September 15th, i.e. about 2 weeks before Airflow Summit. 
    • He said that all the work streams showed good progress, with several getting close to completion. He outlined that there was still a lot of work still to be done on the Task SDK split, but it was making good progress.
    • Vikram said that he was concerned about the UI filters stream of work and requested community help on that front. 
    • Jens asked about the Example DAGs work and Vikram confirmed that he had deliberately not included that in the 3.1 scope because of timing and was targeting that work for the 3.2 release.
• Development Updates
  • AIP-90 Human in the loop update (Wei)
    • Wei had sent a recorded demo of the working functionality from a dev branch.
    • It was amazingly comprehensive, covering the entry operator, the approval operator, and the branch operator.
    • The demo covered both the UI implementation and the API endpoints which could be used for programmatic interaction.
    • Jens confirmed that he had reviewed the PRs and suggested that the AIP was ready for broader UX feedback. 
    • Vikram mentioned that he had spoken with a large Airflow user who was currently using Airflow → Temporal → Airflow as a workaround and was excited for this functionality to eliminate the external dependency.
  • AIP-72 Task Execution Interface aka Task SDK update (Ash and Amogh)
    • Ash covered how the team was working on making the TaskSDK distribution independent of Airflow Core, as well as fixing upgrade blockers such as edge cases and virtual environment connection access. 
    • He mentioned that the key goals for 3.1 were:
      • TaskSDK installable without Airflow Core, and
      • Go SDK complete and ready for use
    • Amogh spoke about the test framework which has now been merged. He said that this now spins up a real Airflow instance to test SDK interface integration with the API server. 
  • Benchmark (AIP-59 Performance tests framework) update (Augusto Hidalgo)
    • Eugene said that Augusto was on vacation, but that the testing framework was running on both Airflow 2.x and Airflow 3, producing results.
    • Vikram asked if Augusto could present at the next dev call or alternatively to share the results async before the next dev call. 
  • AIP-81 Enhanced security in CLI update - airflowctl release planning (Bugra)
    • Bugra covered the detailed test cases created for validating compatibility of airflowctl with Airflow Core 3.1 
    • Bugra said that most bugs were fixed, with one or two open issues. 
    • The proposed release timelines was to start RCs by mid-August, with a target release date of September 1st. 
    • Ash asked the question about compatibility with Airflow 3.0.3 vs. Airflow 3.1, at which point Jarek suggested integrating tests into CI similar to Amogh's work above. 
    • Bugra said the that intention was to deprecate some of the existing CLI commands in the future, to avoid duplication with those commands in airflowctl. 
  • AIP-86 Deadline Alerts update (Dennis, Rajesh, and Ramit)
    • Rajesh said that the team expected to be code complete (for async callbacks) this week. 
    • Dennis confirmed that no UI requirements existed for this AIP, since it was purely a code invocation with notifications. 
    • Dennis confirmed that async callbacks running in the Triggerer were working now and attempted a demo, but the demo gods interfered. 
    • Ramit said that Sync callbacks to be run in the workers would be coming next week. This is similar to the 2.x SLA callback functionality and would be the easiest upgrade path. 
• Discussion Topics
  • Migration blocker issues (Elad)
    • Elad added a label for user-reported upgrade blockers, so that we could easily identify issues preventing 2.x → 3.x upgrades. 
    • Jarek asked the community to help review and give inputs, even if they were unable to code a fix. 
• Action Items
  • Pierre: Request help from the community to work on UI filters (on the dev list and on slack)
  • Augusto Hidalgo: Share performance test results async when back from vacation
  • Dennis / Ramit: Demo the sync callback functionality in the next dev call
  • Community: Review Human-in-the-loop UX and provide feedback
  • Community: Contribute to UI filters work and upgrade blocking issues 

14 August 2025

Proposed Agenda

Attendees

Summary

• Catch-up on action items from last call: None
• Development updates
  • AIP-72 Task Execution Interface aka Task SDK update (Kaxil Naik)
    • Kaxil shared TP had eliminated the Base Operator completely from airflow.models, and that the serialized base / mapped operators were being used exclusively
    • Kaxil also said that the DAG object removal from models is in progress and that he moved to have the big DAG serialization PR out this week, so that all the Task information would be in the serialized DAG version without relying on the shared code.
    • This would then enable the server-client separation and independent deployment upgrades 
    • He said that Ephraim was migrating the airflow exceptions code to appropriate SDK/Core locations 
    • The one blocker for full separation was the shared config parse module. 
  • Benchmark (AIP-59 Performance tests framework) update (Michal Modras)
    • Michal shared the initial benchmark data comparing Airflow 2.10.5 vs. 3.0.0 which was run on a GKE cluster with 4 nodes.
    • Initial performance results for 2 baseline scenarios were positive with Airflow 3.x being significantly faster than Airflow 2.10
    • Michal said that the team would be testing with more scenarios and would publish the testing framework before Airflow Summit 
    • The team was positively surprised by the results and there was significant interest in leveraging the framework as part of RCs and as part of pre-merge checks for complex PRs such as pessimistic vs. optimistic scheduling. 
  • AIP-86 Deadline Alerts update (Dennis, Ramit)
    • Deferred to next dev call
  • Airflow 3.1 test plan update (Rahul)
    • Rahul shared the updated 3.1 test plan and covered the thinking behind it.
    • He explained that the key focus areas were around upgrade / downgrade testing, Human in the loop (since the development there was nearly complete), and the Task SDK decoupling. 
    • Rahul also said that the Task SDK decoupling was of critical priority and needed focus. 
    • Jarek asked about testing of internationalization, which led to the discussion below.
• Discussion topics
  • UI Internationalization release process
    • Following up the 3.1 release testing plan, the team discussed the key steps to releasing the UI internationalization work. 
    • Jens spoke about the earlier discussed policy for this which included a reminder to the dev list about 2 weeks before RC, which would serve as a notice to the language owners to make sure that the translations are up to date before the release. 
    • Shahar volunteered to coordinate between the release manager (Kaxil) and the language owners for the 3.1 release. 
  • Airflow 3 adoption blockers (issues with label priority:upgrade_to_airflow3)
    • There was a good discussion of all the open (around a dozen) issues which were tagged as Airflow 3 upgrade blockers. 
• Action items
  • Shahar: Sync up with Kaxil and send out note to language owners about translation updates and validation
  • Rahul: Update test plan and raise issues with contributors as needed 
  • Michal: Share benchmark framework when ready
  • Vikram: Ping Rajesh, Dennis, et al. about sync SLA callbacks

28 August 2025

Proposed Agenda

Attendees

Summary

• Development Updates and Presentations:
  
  • AIP-72 Task Execution Interface aka Task SDK update (Ash, Kaxil)
    • Kaxil gave a detailed overview of the progress on this including the following highlights.
    • Secrets masker merged. This code is now shared between Task SDK and Airflow core
    • A couple of major PRs are landing this week. Includes: TP's DAG model removal and Kaxil's operator defaults schema changes (expect temporary breakage)
    • Schema defaults implementation is now in place with an updated contract between server/client with precedence hierarchy for defaults
    • A lot of the imports have now been cleaned up. It is 70% complete (12/17 issues merged), led by Ephraim.
    • Handling of the Configuration code in progress, with Amogh moving config to shared library (complex due to widespread usage)
  • AIP-86 Deadline Alerts update (Dennis, Ramit)
    • Dennis gave an overview of the progress, following up from the email to the dev list saying that the Async callbacks are working and will ship in 3.1 as planned. 
    • However, "Sync callbacks" will be delayed to 3.2. 
    • Dennis raised the question about whether the sync callbacks should wait for AIP-92 proposal implementation, since there is a possible conflict on callback architecture with that proposal. 
    • The consensus with the team at the dev call was that Deadline Alert Sync callbacks should continue with the existing design as proposed, rather than waiting for AIP-92. 
    • The action item was for Dennis to update the AIP (for Deadline Alerts) with this current status plus design update, and follow up with a lazy consensus email to the dev list. 
  • Airflow 3.1 test plan update (Rahul)
    • Rahul walked through an update of the 3.1 test plan and said testing was in progress with regression tests running on main and also with feature validation of the scoped AIPs on main. 
    • Rahul also highlighted that there were many open issues which needed to be triaged for the 3.1 milestone and that he was working on Amogh on testing for the import modifications. 
    • Rahul then handed off to Shahar for internationalizations, by saying that the translation owners were taking responsibility for testing their respective translations
  • Language translations update (Shahar)
    • Shahar said that there were would a English freeze a week early to enable translation completion before release
    • Additionally, there would be pre-commit check as enforcement to prevent English changes during the freeze
    • At this point, 4 translations needed committer sponsors (Catalan, Hungarian, Italian, and Portuguese) and the goal was to have 100% translation coverage before 3.1 release. 

11 September 2025

Proposed Agenda

Attendees

Summary

• Development Updates and Presentations:
  • Airflow 3.1 test plan update (Rahul)
    • Rahul shared that the overall testing status was positive across most components. 
    • He shared that the Task SDK regression testing had passed without import issues, the UI filters implementation were tested for audit log and XComm filters, and that the "Human in the loop" feature testing was on track. 
    • Rahul also said that AIP-81 testing ran into authentication issues with token/username-password. Bugra shared that the issue is being investigated and that the current suspicion is that it is environment related. 
    • Rahul was concerned about "UI Plugins" requiring retesting after recent changes by Brent and Pierre. 
    • Rahul also asked Dennis to update the testing status for "Deadline Alerts".
  • Airflow 3.1 beta release update (Kaxil)
    • Kaxil shared that the Airflow 3.1 beta version released earlier in the week did include the two major PRs highlighted in the last dev call i.e. TP's serialized DAG implementation changes and Kaxil's changes for defaults. 
    • As a result of the above, the server-side code now only uses serialized DAGs and Task Groups are decoupled between server and SDK. 
    • Also, migration testing from 2.11 to 3.1 beta has successfully been tested. 
  • Deadline Alerts (Dennis)
    • Dennis shared that async support was being added to Notifiers.
    • He also said that UI aspects were deferred to post 3.1 and that synchronous callbacks were in development, targeted for Airflow 3.2
  • Language translations update (Shahar)
    • Shahar shared that the language translations are at 97% coverage overall and we have been able to add new translations including Catalan and Simplified Chinese. Portuguese and Italian are still in PR, but may still be able to make it before release
    • And that the the translation freeze has been extended until the 3.1 release to get to 100% coverage
    • Amazing work here, I am astonished that we are now up to 14 language translations! 
• Discussion topics:
  • UI plugins recommendation (Pierre)
    • Pierre raised a discussion topic around marking React app plugins as experimental. 
    • Pierre said that the edge provider plugin work by Jens revealed needs for optimization and would probably require changes in build tools and dependency sharing. This would probably only affect very complex UI plugins, but it would be safer at this time to mark this part of the UI plugins work as "experimental". 
    • Based on this recommendation by Pierre and Brent, the team agreed with this recommendation. 
  • Airflow CTL update (Bugra)
    • Bugra said that the first beta was released for "airflow ctl" and that testing was ongoing with limited community interaction to date. 
    • Bugra said that a follow-on release candidate is planned on this, rather than a second beta. 
    • Following on, Bugra created a new AIP to decouple remote commands from the Airflow core CLI, which included a transition approach. 
    • Vikram, Jarek, and Kaxil raised concerns about existing automation dependencies based on the preexisting airflow CLI commands. 
    • Vikram recommended that Bugra delay asking for a vote on this AIP until after the 3.1 release, so that the team has the cognitive capacity to process the changes. 
• Release preparation and related action items:
  • Kaxil asked for the AIP (feature) owners to review the Airflow 3.1 draft release notes. Specifically including:
    • Human in the loop (Wei, et al)
    • Deadline alerts documentation (Dennis / Rajesh):
      • Mention of the async vs. sync differences and what's coming in 3.1 vs. later
      • Migration guide additions to explain the transition from SLA callbacks (in 2.x) to Deadline Alerts in 3.1 
    • UI React plugins documentation (PIerre / Brent):
      • Including what is experimental vs. not
  • Rahul asked Bugra to get back on the "airflow ctl" bugfix and testing
  • Rahul asked Dennis to update the Deadline Alerts testing
  • Vikram asked the team to review and cleanup the priority blocker issues (issues with label priority:upgrade_to_airflow3) and the 3.1 blocking issues
  • Elad asked Dennis to confirm what was needed for Notifier provider release in conjunction with the 3.1 release

23 October 2025

Proposed Agenda

Attendees

Summary

• Development Updates and Presentations:
  • Airflow 3.1.1 patch release update (Kaxil Naik)
    • Kaxil outlined that the 3.1.1 RC2 was cut earlier in the day and he expected 3.1.1 to be generally available on Monday next week.
    • Kaxil also said that he planned to cut the 3.1.2 RC1 before the end of October. Kaxil will be taking leave for a few weeks after that and Ephraim will be cutting the following patch releases. 
  • Airflow 2.11.1 patch release update (Jarek Potiuk)
    • Jarek spoke that this was primarily driven by a need to fix a key CVE and that he had to change a key dependency, but the tests were now working
    • Jarek said this would be a combined Airflow 2.11.1 and Fab provider 1.5.4 release
    • RC1 is planned for community testing, since this addresses multiple CVEs in dependencies. 
    • Jens offered to help with testing support. 
• Discussion topics 
  • Feedback from users about project at Airflow Summit
    • Vikram asked the team to share the feedback they had heard from the Summit regarding any Airflow 3 adoption challenges or critical issues
    • Amogh went first saying that he was folks had raised issues with niche use cases - primarily when they were leveraging the Airflow meta database directly for temporary data storage and therefore the lack of direct DB access was a blocker in Airflow 3 adoption. 
    • Vikram spoke about how we had told users in the past that they could work around this by explicitly defining a database connection to the Postgres database and using it explicitly, rather than implicitly through the Airflow internal interfaces, but also added that he wasn't sure if it was documented anywhere. Amogh said that he wasn't aware of that expressed solution and would create a Github issue to make sure it was documented. There was a larger discussion around this, including that users could leverage the published APIs (going through the API server) for this capability now. 
    • Dheeraj spoke about the issues his team at Qualcomm had faced in their upgrade. This was following up on his earlier email to the dev list and said that they had faced the issue above as well and had worked around it as expressed above. 
    • Dheeraj also raised the issue that the import changes were annoying, and that the Qualcomm team was not aware of the Ruff based utilities for upgrades. There was significant discussion around this as well and if this was a point in time issue with the early 3.0 builds. Ash asked Dheeraj if he could retry this with Airflow 3.1, since there was so much compatibility work done to keep the imports working and Dheeraj agreed to get back on this.
    • Dheeraj also said that there were several UI challenges around performance and a couple around navigation. Specifically, slow to load large DAGs, to list lots of DAGs, and log scrolling for large files. Also, viewing the UI from a mobile phone was problematic in 3 as compared to 2.x.  Brent and Pierre said that there were performance improvements in 3.1.1, but work was in flight around this. 
    • Dheeraj also said that very large DAG files i.e. with 23,000+ tasks were choking the DAG file processor. Kaxil asked Dheeraj to open a Github issue around this. 
  • Devlist followup on focusing on adoption issues 
    • Vikram asked the team if there were any objections to the proposal shared on the devlist to devote the next month i.e. mid-Oct to mid-Nov towards focusing on Airflow 3 adoption issues instead of significant new development. There were no objections to this.
    • Vikram then summarized that he would add this focus area to the Airflow wiki and that we could release a set of patch releases over the next four weeks to address these issues. 
    • Vikram also said that the logical timing for Airflow 3.2 would be to start development in earnest in mid-Nov, with a target release of March 2026, accounting for the holidays in late November and late December. There was general consensus. 
  • Why more providers needed ? Unknown User (potiuk) - deferred because of lack of time

6 November 2025

Proposed Agenda

Attendees

Summary

• Catch-up on action items from last call:
  • DAG import issues (Dheeraj)
    • Dheeraj said that he had re-tested the upgrade process and that the RUFF based utilities had significantly improved DAG compatibility from Airflow 2 to Airflow 3, when run with autofix, with over 50% of all the DAGs successfully parsed with Airflow 3, without needing manual changes. 
    • Dheeraj went to to say that the remaining issues requiring manual fixes were with: 
      • airflow.utils days_ago method,
      • DB create session no longer being available, because of direct database access removal
      • Simple HTTP Operator deprecation and Bash Operator being moved 
    • Dheeraj's summary was that the migration timeline after using the utilities would be about 3-4 days to achieve 80-90% DAG compatibility
    • The only remaining issue in his mind was UI performance, where it seemed that there was a noticeable slowdown as compared to Airflow 2.x
    • This report raised a fair amount of questions and discussion in the meeting itself. It was very helpful for the rest of the team to hear Dheeraj's feedback!

• Development Updates and Presentations:
  • Airflow 3.1.x patch release update (Ephraim Anierobi)
    • Ephraim said that 3.1.2 had been released successfully.
    • Jarek reported that there was one issue reported right after about disappearing logs which may be critical and require a follow-on patch release. 
    • Rahul chimed in to say that this log issue was reproducible and a fix had also been identified and tested. 
    • There was agreement that this may require a 3.1.3 very soon, instead of waiting for the 2 week release cycle.
    • This is currently scheduled for this week and added to the Airflow 3.x wiki page
  • UI performance issues (Pierre Jeambrun)
    • Pierre reported that a number of N+1 query problems had been identified, were being resolved, and guard rails being put in place. The root cause was serialization layer lazy-loading relationships in loops. 
    • Pierre also referenced an issue that had identified missing indexes as a source of slowness and this was being resolved by new index creation. Vikram raised his concern that new index creation could cause issues in the "DB migration" part of an Airflow upgrade. Ash concurred with the concern and proposed a solution to make index creation part of the API server/ Scheduler startup rather than as part of the migration. 
    • Brent added that the Grid view performance remains challenging and that additional optimization work was being planned after the N+1 fixes were complete. 
    • There was also discussion about FastAPI configuration changes because of scaling differences from the Flask approach. This triggered a need for updating the documentation to recommend scaling approach recommendations. 
  • Auth issues (Vincent Beck)
    • Vincent reported that issues related to Auth were being resolved and that he had taken this on at Vikram's request. 
  • Expanding Task SDK Integration test framework with more tests (Amogh)
    • There was a quick ask for help from Amogh requesting community contributions to the Task SDK integration test framework. 
    • Amogh said that the complexity was higher than previous efforts and may require a SIG on slack for coordination. 
• Discussion topics:
  • Issue triage process (Vikram)
    • Vikram followed up on his email summary of issues sent to the dev list earlier, saying that the "needs triage" label was applied to 73 of the 284 open issues related to Airflow 3. And that this still seemed to be applied even after a PR had been created to address the issue. 
    • Jarek chimed in to say that this was unintentional and that at least he himself often forgot to assign or remove labels during the review process. 
    • Vikram proposed adoption of issues into logical swim lanes, with volunteer owners for those lanes such as:
      • Auth issues: Vincent leading
      • UI / API issues: Pierre and Brent leading
      • Data aware scheduling: TP and Wei leading
      • Edge Worker: Jens leading
    • There was some discussion around this with senior contributors such as Ash, saying that they look at everything, not based on individual areas. However, Vincent and Jens chimed in saying that this would be useful for them to focus attention. Brent chimed in saying that sometimes issues were mislabeled with the UI tag, but that was solvable by reassigning the UI-labelled issues post-initial triage. 
    • An aspiring contributor commented that these swim lane labels would also be useful for issues tagged with "Good first issue", so that they could pick something to work on based on their own skills and interests. 
    • Elad pointed out that this needs to be tried out in practice and if it works, also applied to PRs, since there are many PRs sitting waiting for approval. At this point, we have hit a record of 343 open PRs in the project! 
  • Thoughts on how to document DB access options in Airflow 3 upgrade docs (Amogh)
    • Amogh said that the Database access options topic had raised a lot of discussion on the PR. 
    • As a result, Amogh started a dev list discussion and was looking for input. Based on that, a lazy consensus would be started middle of next week. 

20 November 2025

Proposed Agenda

Attendees

Summary

• Catch-up on action items from last call:
  • Swim lane issue / PR tracking update (Unknown User (vikramkoka) )
    • Vikram shared the output from the automated script he had created for tracking all open issues and PRs.
    • Using the 3.0 release date as a starting point, there are 308 open issues and 325 open PRs. 
    • Core Airflow had about 200 open issues out of which the UI and API swim lane had a third of all open issues and PRs.
    • Helm Chart had 18 open issues and 14 open PRs. 
    • Dev tools (including CI) had a surprisingly high number (34) of open PRs. 
    • Providers had about a quarter of the overall, but not yet classified in detail, because of a script bug.
    • Vikram also added that he would be updating the 3.x page with the updated swim lane information including metrics, and the swim lane leads. 
    • Vikram asked for volunteers to fill out the swim lane leads for areas which are backlogged.
    • Jens said that he would take the lead on Helm Chart, after chatting with Jed since Jed was now back from leave. 
    • Jarek suggested that "draft PRs" be excluded from the counts. 
    • Shahar asked about more detailed labels and leveraging the issue bot, but Vikram said that the issue bot was currently often wrong, requiring manual re-tagging. 
• Development Updates and Presentations:
  • Airflow 3.1.x patch release update (Unknown User (ephraimanierobi) )
    • Ephraim said that Core Airflow 3.1.3 was released last week
    • Ephraim added that 3.1.4 was planned for the first week of December, adding that it was originally targeted for a week earlier, but wanted to avoid Good Friday week. 
    • Jarek added that this was likely the last release before Christmas / New Year. 
    • Bugra added that airflowctl patch release dependencies were being resolved and that a new release candidate was being created. 
  • UI performance issues (Unknown User (pierrejeambrun)  / Unknown User (bbovenzi) )
    • Pierre said that the N+1 query issues were resolved and that the fixes were released as part of 3.1.3 
    • Pierre went on to say that the next priorities included adding missing indexes for sorting/filtering and that these needed to be configurable since the criteria could be different across user organizations. 
    • Brent added that additional work would be needed for View specific enhancements, such as Grid View performance enhancements. 
    • There was also a question raised about documenting guidance for the deployment of API servers for scale. 
  • AI-generated PR management strategy 
    • Vikram asked the question for the UI team about how many of the generated PRs (since the UI had the largest number of PR contributions) were AI-generated and if there were any quality issues
    • Brent responded that the PRs ranged from AI-assisted good PRs to very low-effort PRs which hadn't had enough thought behind them. 
    • Pierre said that his approach was to match the review effort to the contribution effort i.e. spend very little time reviewing low-effort PRs and just give high level feedback for obviously AI-generated PRs, so that time wasn't wasted.
    • Overall the team felt that they were spending a disproportionate amount of time reviewing poor quality PRs. 
    • Jarek said that ASF suggests (but does not mandate) disclosure of LLM usage in contributions
    • This led to a discussion on needing to update the contributing guide to reflect expectations on AI usage in the PR creation process. Ash took that action item to update the contributing guide. 
• Discussion topics:
  
  • Why more providers needed ? Unknown User (potiuk)
    • Jarek raised the challenge of increasing provider breadth, by saying that despite incoming requests for additional providers and people willing to contribute providers, we were limited by maintainer capacity. Jarek said that he had collaborated on a proposal with Vikram and others and would like to see this proposal move forward.
    • Vikram described the proposal for new providers as follows:
      • An Incubation step for new providers, then proceeding to "mainstream / production, and then to "attic / deprecation" if no longer being used
      • Contributors would need to take ownership responsibility for maintenance. 
      • Similar to the issue / PR metrics for core Airflow above, we would track and publish metrics around open issues, PR reviews, CVE fixes per provider 
      • Special case handling for mature, stable providers such as Slack. 
      • This process would be similar to how we handle translations with Shahar leading translations as a committer, but with individuals taking ownership for the actual creation and maintenance. 
      • We would continue to have only Apache Airflow committers as people who can merge, similar to translations. 
    • Radu (from Vespa) said that they wished to contribute an Airflow provider. Radu went on to say that the shared ownership model described earlier would be mutually beneficial and that they would be incentivized to maintain their contribution, so that their users have a good experience
    • Vikram to update the AIP and send out a follow-up to the dev list
  • Multi-team to be aimed for 3.2 or 3.3 release (Vincent BECK )
    • Vincent wasn't at the meeting, but Niko chimed to say that they would like to target portions of the multi-team AIP for 3.2, with other elements following on in 3.3. 
    • Vikram asked about the status of the Deadline Alerts AIP, and Niko said that the remainder of the Notifier improvements were planned for 3.2
    • There will be a significant portion of the next dev call (on Dec 4th) dedicated to 3.2 scope planning. 

4 December 2025

Proposed Agenda

Attendees

Summary

• Development Updates
  • Airflow 3.1.4 patch release update (Ephraim Anierobi)
    • Ephraim shared that the 3.1.4 patch release had around 47 bug fixes, with a total of around 183 pull requests. 
    • Key fixes included task clearing race conditions in backfills when multiple schedulers are active, deadline alert handling, local executor memory leaks and N+1 query improvements. 
    • There are also several UI improvements including task highlighting in the graph view and mobile layout. 
  • Task SDK / Shared libraries update (Amogh Desai)
    • Amogh said that the "shared library" effort is nearly complete now with 7 libraries identified for decoupling Task SDK from Airflow Core. 
    • Out of these seven, five have already been completed and merged. The two remaining are for traces/metrics and listeners. 
    • Amogh and Jarek gave a shoutout to Christos for the work here! 
  • UI E2E Testing framework update (Rahul Vats)
    • Rahul shared that the playwright based framework PR for testing was merged and that CI work is in progress to trigger these tests for UI changes. 
    • Rahul said that he had created a meta issue containing all the test scenarios organized by page and that the plan was to focus on critical flows and recent UI issues such as pagination. 
    • Rahul asked for community contributions here and was considering a phased rollout. 
• Discussion Topics
  • Providers documented release plan (Jens Scheffler / Jarek Potiuk)
    • Jens said he had created a draft release for providers in Confluence to help coordinate the work between release managers.
    • Jens said that it currently covered Provider releases and could be expanded to others.
    • Jens asked where the Core Airflow releases were documented and Vikram shared that they were documented in the Airflow 3.x wiki page, but was out of date for the 3.1.4 page
    • Jens also asked if there were any objections to moving the provider releases from Thursday to Tuesday to facilitate easier validation on weekdays instead of weekends. The release managers agreed to this. 
  • Helm chart scope and strategy (Jens, Jarek, Jed) 
    • There was a quick reference to the dev list email about dropping support for Airflow 1 in the helm chart and that there would be a lazy consensus follow up to the same
    • There was much longer discussion on the overall scope of the Helm chart, including changes for the embedded database support in the helm chart. There also was a reference to potentially adopting Kustomize as a way to simplify the chart and to extend it for edge cases using Kustomize. There was no immediate agreement here, other than to continue the discussion async on the dev list.  
  • Airflow 3.2 potential scope 
    • Vikram started the discussion saying that it would be good to get an overall scope and plans together for 3.2 release with the target timeline of March 2026. 
    • Vikram also added that Daniel Standish had updated the Asset Partitions AIP with the focus on 3.2. 
    • Vincent added that the multi-team work was progressing and that they would be targeting an experimental release in time for 3.2 to enable user testing and feedback, with a goal of an official release in Airflow 3.3 later in the year. 
    • Rajesh added that Dennis was actively working on the Deadline Alerts sync callback work with a target of 3.2 release.
    • The team noted that there were several large AIPs being discussed and that we need to get some formal scope and planning together in order to identify the interactions between these AIPs. Vikram took the action item to ask and help these AIP authors formalize scope and timelines. 
  • Rookie awards vote (Srabasti)
    • Vikram said that Srabasti Banerjee had wanted to remind the team to vote for the "new budding contributor" awards on the dev list before the deadline.

18 December 2025

Proposed Agenda

Attendees

Summary

• Meeting cancelled since a lot of the normal participations were unavailable due to the holidays. 

15 January 2026

Proposed Agenda

Attendees

Summary

• Development and swim lane updates
  • Macro update on swim lane numbers and focus areas (Vikram)
    • Vikram walked through the updated swim lane numbers as posted on the Airflow 3.x wiki page. 
    • Vikram shared that with agreement from Jens and Jed, he had combined the Kubernetes provider area with the Helm chart swim lane, since the expertise was common to resolve issues and approve PRs across both those areas. 
    • Vikram also thanked all the tech leads for their focus on the swim lanes in the early part of the year, saying that he had a significant drop in the "open work items" in the first two weeks of the new year.
    • Vikram said that the "Logging" swim lane needed a volunteer to help lead efforts there, since it was limited by Ash's bandwidth at this time. 
    • Feedback from the team was to:
      • Jarek asked to exclude draft PRs from all areas
      • Pierre said that the API issues were really two-fold: UI and Execution. Pierre proposed to break those apart for easier tracking by marking execution API issues as "Task SDK" and the team immediately agreed.
      • Jens had asked about looking at the details with each issue or PR. Vikram responded that it was possible, but he had run into GitHub rate limits and had therefore stayed at looking at the issue / PR labels. 
      • Action item: Vikram to add the DAG (summarization script) to the repo for collaborative improvements on the scripts, especially for those areas which had multiple labels. 
  • UI / API update (Brent / Pierre)
    • The UI / API area continues to be the largest backlog area with significant volume. Pierre and Brent both reported significant progress since the last dev call in closing issues and merging PRs
    • They also shared that the Grid view performance was significantly improved for large DAGs (tested with 1000+ tasks). 
    • However, the Graph view still has issues with very large DAGs and more work is needed here. 
    • API Server is now stable, but UX challenges remain for very large DAGs and DAG runs. 
  • UI test framework update (Rahul Vats)
    • Rahul shared that we are about 30-35% coverage with over 40 test cases completed and 9 PRs merged. There are still 27 open issues still to be worked on.
    • A big focus is on pagination testing using the limit/offset approach for UI. 
    • Also, he was spending a significant amount of time on manual validation of the tests locally before merging, by intentionally introducing bugs in the local brach to ensure that the tests are catching those bugs. 
    • Action item: Rahul to continue end-to-end UI testing also with a focus on large DAG performance scenarios
• Airflow 3.2 scope discussion
  • AIP-76 Asset Partitions updated scope (Daniel Standish)
    • Daniel walked through a presentation detailing the updated work on Asset Partitions highlighting the focus on date based partitions. 
    • Daniel walked through the key components including: Partition-aware asset events, partition-driven DAG scheduling, and enabling DAGs to listen/respond to specific partition updates. 
    • There was a significant discussion around the similarity / differences between date-based partitions and logical date based data-intervals. 
    • Daniel emphasized the flexibility in keeping the above concepts separate going forward. Daniel shared the current status as having completed the listener functionality, and now working on the scheduler component. 
  • AIP-67 Multi-team (experimental) updated scope (Niko / Vincent)
    • Niko shared a quick update about the multi-team work saying that the Core scheduling is working with multiple executors, of which the Local executor work is complete and the Celery Executor work is in progress. 
    • This is expected to be in 3.2 as "experimental", without having any security isolation guarantees. 
    • The Security isolation work will be continuing with an expected delivery in Airflow 3.3. Vincent said that David Blain offered to help with the Keycloak auth manager support for multi-team.
    • Action item: Niko to share a detailed scope of 3.2 vs. 3.3 via slack and follow up in the next dev call.
  • AIP-86 Deadline Alerts Sync callbacks (Dennis / Ramit)
    • Dennis shared that time-based deadlines with all callback would be ready for Airflow 3.2
    • Dennis also said that a large DB migration PR is pending review after the serialized DAG refactor work
    • Dennis also said that the asset-based deadline trigger work would be deferred to Airflow 3.3
    • Action item: David to send deadline alerts completion / scope status via Slack.

29 January 2026

Proposed Agenda

Attendees

Summary

• Swim lane updates:
  • UI Test framework (Rahul Vats):
    • Rahul shared that we now have 65 test cases with good input from the community. 
    • He also shared that as a result CI now takes 15 minutes for these tests and optimization is needed, with one approach to move some of these into unit tests. Rahul said he is working with Brent on this. 
    • Rahul also mentioned that this has already been valuable in catching a bug in main before the 3.1.7 release. 
    • Still working on an important issue with Grid performance with large DAGs. Kaxil highlighted a great PR from Christos which fixed a performance issue i.e. #54103
  • UI / API  (Pierre Jeambrun): 
    • Pierre shared an overall update including several feature changes that will show up in Airflow 3.2 such as permissions changes for API-level access controls, UI customization changes, and React compiler optimizations. 
    • Kartik had added a significant change in PR #60274 which resulted in noticeable improvements in API server performance, by eliminating duplicate fetching.
• Airflow 3.2 development updates:
  • Task SDK Update (Amogh)
    • Amogh said that the Task SDK work is nearing completion excluding small core imports and that he had to make changes to the Deadline Alerts for SDK separation compliance which needs review from the AWS team. 
    • He also added that he was working on a declarative connections loading scheme via YAML spec to decouple providers.
  • Deadline Alerts (Dennis Ferruzzi):
    • Dennis shared that sync callback support PR is ready for base / local executors. Niko has reviewed this and will have changes. 
    • Dennis said that the behavior of the sync callbacks will be different from the old SLA callbacks because these will be run by the workers rather than by the DAG file processor. 
    • Kaxil said this could have concurrency implications and asked for the documentation changes detailing this behavior.
  • Multi-team (Niko / Vincent):
    • Niko said the executor updates were in flight with the AWS Batch executor work completed and others assigned to community members. Niko said that the celery executor work is complex and still in progress. 
    • The second stream of work was on the UI, with the pool selector UI updates by Vincent nearing completion. 
    • Niko said that the dag_id uniqueness work was difficult and probably would not be in the 3.2 release. 
  • Asset Partitions (Daniel Standish):
    • Daniel shared that the scheduler changes for DAG scheduling based on partitions was in flight, with several PRs having been added by Wei. 
    • The next big item was backfill support for asset partitions. 
    • Daniel also shared that the UI work was being planned with Brent.
  • AIP-98 Async support for Python Operator (David Blain):
    • David shared that this had already been merged and would be part of Airflow 3.2. 
    • There was an open item for documentation around this, specifically regarding the use cases supported. 
    • David shared that this would eventually lead to the Iterable Operator work in AIP-98.
• Discussion topics:
  
  • AIP-95 Providers lifecycle governance (Vikram)
    • Vikram shared that the first PR for the updated governance process was merged and that the new process enables the sponsoring of additional providers. 
    • Initial candidates identified include Vespa and Informatica, which are both in flight.
  • AIP-94 CLI Decoupling (Bugra)
    • Bugra noted that the voting period for this AIP was currently active through the week and invited feedback. 
    • Bugra elaborated that the current plan was to have Airflow CLI commands proxy to Airflow CTL for remote operations, without any user-facing changes. 
    • Local admin commands such as DB clean would remain unchanged. 
    • Kaxil suggested an alternative i.e. single Airflow CTL set of commands for all operations. 

12 February 2026

Proposed Agenda

Attendees

Summary

• Swim lane updates:
  • UI Test framework (Rahul Vats):
    • Rahul shared that we now have good coverage on the E2E UI tests with more tests having been added over the last two weeks bringing the total now to 83. 
    • He said that some of the end to end tests have been moved to being unit tests, so that the CI times could be reduced, and that this work was ongoing, since the CI was now around 14-15 minutes despite the move because of the additional tests.
  • UI / API update (Pierre):
    • Pierre confirmed that API issues were only for those supporting the UIs. The API issues supporting task execution were now flagged under TaskSDK. 
    • Pierre shared that the team was leveraging the test deployment created by Rahul containing millions of task instance records for performance issue identification, and that there was great community participation in this process, including endpoint improvements with caching.
• Airflow 3.2 development updates:
  • AIP-76 Asset Partitions (Wei Lee):
    •  Wei Lee shared a recorded demo showcasing the progress made to date on Asset Partitions, which showed support for date based partitions, leveraging timetables. 
    • The concepts of flexible date based partitions such as Hourly, Daily, Weekly, etc., were clearly demonstrated in the demo and the overall demo was very well received by the team. 
    • There were some questions around the partition keys and the visibility of those partition keys in the UI, which the team agreed to take offline with Wei. Vikram also requested community feedback on potential issues with mismatched partition keys and conditions for subsequent triggering. 
  • AIP-86 Deadline alerts (Dennis):
    • Dennis said that the last two PRs were ready for review, with synchronous callbacks working in the local executor and were abstracted in the base executor. 
    • Dennis shared that Celery implementation was nearly complete and that would be asking for community help on the other executors.
    • Dennis said that they were well positioned to hit the code freeze target date of the week of Feb 26th. 
    • Vikram to follow up with Dennis async regarding the configuration tradeoffs around sync callback execution, concurrency controls, and timeliness of alerts.
  • AIP-67 Multi-team (Niko / Vincent):
    • Vincent said that they were working on adding minimal multi-team functionality to simple auth manager for testing. 
    • Rajesh said that Niko had asked for community help on the Kubernetes executor for multi-team, but that there wasn't much progress here yet.
  • AIP-98 Async Python Operator (David Blain):
    • Vikram enquired if there was any progress on the documentation around the Async Python Operator, specifically the usage guidance as compared to Deferrable operators. 
    • There didn't seem to be, so Vikram to follow-up async with David on this. 
• Discussion topics:
  • AIP-99 Common data access patterns (Pavan)
    • Pavan presented a comprehensive overview of the work planned for this AIP, specifically including: SQL Query generation using DB schemas, Human-in-the-loop review before execution, Data transfer operators via DataFusion, and based on support for all existing Airflow database hooks
    • Pavan also showed a quick demo which covered: Automatic schema fetching from Postgres, SQL generation with validation, and XCom integration for query results. 
    • Pavan said that the implementation approach would be to start with basic SQL operators and would then expand to multiple databases.
    • The overview and demo was very well received by the team. 
    • Vikram asked for broader interfaces to be defined first, before going broad with database support and Pavan agreed with that guidance.
  • AIP-100 Task Priorities (Natanel and Theo S):
    • Natanel shared the analysis and draft design approaches written up by the two of them (Theo could not make the call) regarding priority-based scheduling within Airflow. 
    • Natanel said that the current priority-based scheduling causes starvation at significant scale, when concurrency limits are hit with worker saturation. Based on their research, the proposed solutions built on top of a combination of priority + aging. 
    • Jens shared his feedback (through Vikram) that he very much appreciated the analysis, but was unconvinced about any of the currently proposed solutions. 
    • Vikram also commended the team on their research into the problem, and added that he was surprised that task priorities still existed in Airflow, saying that he had though we had deprecated them a long time ago (since Airflow 2)
    • The general consensus was that the topic needed greater in-depth offline thought before proceeding to a conclusion towards an algorithm and a migration strategy.

26 February 2026

Proposed Agenda

Attendees

Summary

• Swim lane updates:
  • UI Test framework (Rahul Vats):
    • Rahul shared that the UI test framework has reached a significant milestone, now at 121 test cases after removing pagination and sorting cases from the meta issue, which has now been closed with all scenarios marked as complete.
    • Current work is focused on addressing test flakiness and reducing execution time by increasing the number of workers from the current default. 
    • Rahul plans to create a new meta issue next week for contributions to unit tests as a follow-up to this work.
    • On the performance front, Rahul and Pierre have created a meta issue for large DAG and task performance improvements, with 5 issues already closed and around 4 still open. The target is to close the remaining items before the 3.2 release. 
  • AIP-72 Task SDK update (Amogh)
    • Amogh shared that the AIP-72 project board in Github is officially closed today, having completed over 300 issues and PRs, which was significantly larger in scope than initially anticipated. Phase 2 planning for expanding to DAG processing and Triggerer are underway with initial thinking of focusing on the 3.3 timeframe. 
    • Analysis of the remaining imports shows minimal dependencies, with the main blocker being that Dag.test still requires Airflow Core, and some dependencies based on the Deadline Alerts executor work. 
  • UI / API swim lane update (Pierre / Brent)
    • Brent shared that UI plugins dependency work has been completed and that the Data Partitions UI work is in progress for 3.2. 
    • Graph view performance optimization for large Dags is in flight and is a stretch goal for the 3.2 release.
• Airflow 3.2 development updates:
  • AIP-76 Asset Partitions (Wei Lee / TP):
    • Wei shared a recorded video of the Asset Partitions work which demonstrated completed work for Date based partitioned DAGs. 
    • The outstanding element of work seemed to be documentation.
  • Multi-team (Niko / Vincent):
    • Dennis noted that a PR has been pending review for almost a month. Amogh provided detailed feedback requiring significant changes, and while Jens had approved the PR, additional reviews were still needed. The team agreed that Dennis could proceed with follow-up PRs for incremental improvements in parallel.
  • Deadline Alerts (Dennis Ferruzzi):
    
    • Niko shared that the multi-team work had entered UAT phase with ongoing, active community testing. All features scoped for 3.2 were implemented and marked as "experimental" as previously discussed. With respect to executor support, Niko shared that Celery was completed, Kubernetes was in progress, and Edge discussions were ongoing. 
    • Niko also clarified that multi-team configuration required deployment manager involvement and was not intended to be dynamically configurable.
  • Release Management (Rahul / Kaxil):
    • Rahul shared that the 3.2 timeline was on track, with the beta branch having been cut. 
    • Vikram shared that approximately 1,500 meaningful commits were included between 3.1 and 3.2, excluding CI and dev tooling, which made this significantly larger than a normal, minor release. 
• Discussion topics:
  
  • Helm chart release (Bugra)
    • Bugra presented the current state of the Helm chart, with version 1.19 recently released and proposed moving to a major version i.e. 2.0 to drop deprecated features. 
    • Jed recommended at least one more 1.x release with proper deprecation warnings in place before making such a break. Jens supported a 1.20 release followed by a 2.0 clean up. 
    • The decision was to have the core Helm chart contributors schedule a dedicated call to align on the release strategy. Bugra took this action item.
  • Security / Isolation level for 3.2 (Jarek)
    • Jarek raised the current gap in security isolation, specifically that there is no isolation between tasks running on the same machine. 
    • Ash that said he had a PR implementing a feature for worker process memory protection, with additional work needed for DAG processor and triggerer isolation. 
    • After significant discussion, the team decided to defer the follow-on work to 3.3 given the complexity and the required integration with the DAG processor and Triggerer changes already targeted for that release.

12 March 2026

Proposed Agenda