Jarek Potiuk

This is a nice-to-have and open for someone who would like to implement it.

Hello here. I am an Apache Airflow maintainer - and we are looking - together with Open Refactory and Alpha-Omega at improving Apache Airflow's Supply Chain security. This one is...

> We now support constraints on `uv add`, but they're not persisted to the `pyproject.toml` (just the `uv.lock`) and I don't think it _quite_ resolves the Airflow use-case. I hope...

> What do you think of switching to a ThreadPoolExecutor instead of a [ProcessPoolExecutor](https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/providers-openlineage/1.14.0/providers/src/airflow/providers/openlineage/plugins/listener.py#L398) ? This would eliminate the need for serialization while still allowing asynchronous execution. From what I...

Feel free to contribute it - otherwise it will have to wait for someone to pick it up (marked it as good-first-issue since there are some clear examples it can...

We have the same problem with Airlfow - we are preparing to migrate to upcoming connextion 2.15 and running tests with flask-session>=7.9.0 that it will require and I have the...

cc: @dstandish -> You wanted to do something like that - I think the approach proposed by the Google team (for now in google provider is really nice and we...

> Instead of a pre-commit check and enforcing the style of the message did you consider adding extra (required) args to the deprecated decorator Pre-commit check is still needed regardless...

> It's also explained in this discussion: [#37075 (comment)](https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/37075#discussion_r1484366520), maybe someone will find it useful, so just leaving it here. Yep. We've been discussing this :)

> The idea of releasing such a decorator in a separated provider package seems like a great solution! Is there any chance to implement it any time soon? I see...