Ketan (kumare3)

    Ketan (kumare3)

    7 months ago
    Folks, I have a question for you. We are working on revamping the flytekit configuration system. But, always try very hard not to break anyone. Would it be ok, if we changed flytekit.remote constructor and deprecate some configs. This may break some scripts that use flytekit.remote, but the fix will be very simple. cc @Maarten de Jong / @jeev / @Dylan Wilder
    the goal is to make it extremely simple for anyone to instantiate flytekit.remote and even perform registration directly programmatically. We are moving towards a completely automated registration process to improve velocity, but we need to change a few things before that
    also @Adrian Rumpold
    also @Fabio Grätz / @Emirhan Karagül
    Maarten de Jong

    Maarten de Jong

    7 months ago
    personally we don't shy away from breaking a few things here and then if it improves the experience, so I'd be cool with it. If there's a issue on the suggested changes it'd be interesting to know as well
    Fabio Grätz

    Fabio Grätz

    7 months ago
    Same here, we will at first pin a version before that change and then adapt it. On Tuesday in the community sync I will talk about how we accelerated registration programatically using the flyte remote and a hydra-core launcher we built for flyte. With this you can build all images, register, and optionally execution with a single cmd.
    Ketan (kumare3)

    Ketan (kumare3)

    7 months ago
    This is amazing
    So let's just build on that
    j

    jeev

    7 months ago
    no issue for us either.