Cloudera community provider added (Work in progress)

[zomborinorbert]

Cloudera Airflow Provider (Work in progress)
This component provides two Cloudera operators to be integrated in your dags:

CdeRunJobOperator, for triggering Cloudera Data Engineering jobs through API tokens
CdwExecuteQueryOperator, for executing queries on the target Cloudera Data Warehouse instance

[boring-cyborg]

Congratulations on your first Pull Request and welcome to the Apache Airflow community! If you have any issues or are unsure about any anything please check our Contribution Guide (https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.rst)
Here are some useful points:

• Pay attention to the quality of your code (flake8, mypy and type annotations). Our pre-commits will help you with that.
• In case of a new feature add useful documentation (in docstrings or in docs/ directory). Adding a new operator? Check this short guide Consider adding an example DAG that shows how users should use it.
• Consider using Breeze environment for testing locally, it’s a heavy docker but it ships with a working Airflow and a lot of integrations.
• Be patient and persistent. It might take some time to get a review or get the final approval from Committers.
• Please follow ASF Code of Conduct for all communication including (but not limited to) comments on Pull Requests, Mailing list and Slack.
• Be sure to read the Airflow Coding style.
  Apache Airflow is a community-driven project and together we are making it better 🚀.
  In case of doubts contact the developers at:
  Mailing List: dev@airflow.apache.org
  Slack: https://s.apache.org/airflow-slack

[potiuk]

I suggest you take a look at the thread started today https://lists.apache.org/thread/t1k3d0518v4kxz1pqsprdc78h0wxobg0 and see what steps you should follow. I think any new provider should be discussed at the devlist as explained in the thread. You might want to choose not to submit it as a "community" provider when you consider all pros and cons.

[planoe-cloudera]

I suggest you take a look at the thread started today https://lists.apache.org/thread/t1k3d0518v4kxz1pqsprdc78h0wxobg0 and see what steps you should follow. I think any new provider should be discussed at the devlist as explained in the thread. You might want to choose not to submit it as a "community" provider when you consider all pros and cons.

Thanks, we will come up with a feedback soon, we anyway have a couple of things to fix

[potiuk]

I also started another thread - as we see more and more providers coming our way :). https://lists.apache.org/thread/nvfc75kj2w1tywvvkw8ho5wkx1dcvgrn

I hope to have some clarity on the rules (and I generally thing Cloudera is not a problem at all to become a community provider as long as you want :)

[potiuk]

Hey @planoe-cloudera @zomborinorbert - let's see what comes out of the discussion in https://lists.apache.org/thread/nvfc75kj2w1tywvvkw8ho5wkx1dcvgrn

I am not agains merging Cloudera, but I think - with the influx of new provider, discuss and settle on the approach we are going to have. Your voice - on why you think Cloudera provider will be better in the community is most welcome.

[Fokko]

Suggested change

	``apache-airflow-providers-databricks``
	``apache-airflow-providers-cloudera``

[potiuk]

Hey @Fokko @zomborinorbert, sorry It took a bit long but I think we got to a consensus regarding new providers, and we also propose some kind of mix-governance aproach, where (among the others) the stakeholders for the future providers (which we are going to technically split to separate repositories soon) should take a bit more responsibility for maintenance:

#24680

If that does not scare you away, and you still want to add the provider to Airflow community providers, feel free to rebase the PR. I will also ask you (hopefully it will be merged soon) to rebase it after we merge #24672 - we are going to change the way how we keep depdencies for providers in order to prepare them to separate to different repository.

Let us know what you want to do, either close the PR or rebase it and lead it to completion after #24672 is merged.

[planoe-cloudera]

Hey @Fokko @zomborinorbert, sorry It took a bit long but I think we got to a consensus regarding new providers, and we also propose some kind of mix-governance aproach, where (among the others) the stakeholders for the future providers (which we are going to technically split to separate repositories soon) should take a bit more responsibility for maintenance:

#24680

If that does not scare you away, and you still want to add the provider to Airflow community providers, feel free to rebase the PR. I will also ask you (hopefully it will be merged soon) to rebase it after we merge #24672 - we are going to change the way how we keep depdencies for providers in order to prepare them to separate to different repository.

Let us know what you want to do, either close the PR or rebase it and lead it to completion after #24672 is merged.

Hello @potiuk thanks, we will close the PR and come up with a new one. EDIT: actually, I do not have rights to close the PR, so please do so.

[github-actions]

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

[github-actions]

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