Revert "Limit Pydantic < 2.0.0 until Airflow resolves incompatibilities"

[pankajastro]

Reverts astronomer/astro-sdk#1981

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 83.33% and project coverage change: +0.48% :tada:

Comparison is base (bfc8daa) 90.84% compared to head (f2fa239) 91.32%. Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #1991 +/- ## ========================================== + Coverage 90.84% 91.32% +0.48% ========================================== Files 72 72 Lines 4250 4255 +5 Branches 511 512 +1 ========================================== + Hits 3861 3886 +25 + Misses 302 282 -20 Partials 87 87 ``` | Flag | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | PythonSDK | `91.32% <83.33%> (+0.48%)` | :arrow_up: | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=astronomer#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more. | [Files Changed](https://app.codecov.io/gh/astronomer/astro-sdk/pull/1991?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=astronomer) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [python-sdk/src/astro/sql/operators/cleanup.py](https://app.codecov.io/gh/astronomer/astro-sdk/pull/1991?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=astronomer#diff-cHl0aG9uLXNkay9zcmMvYXN0cm8vc3FsL29wZXJhdG9ycy9jbGVhbnVwLnB5) | `90.08% <50.00%> (-1.52%)` | :arrow_down: | | [python-sdk/src/astro/databases/base.py](https://app.codecov.io/gh/astronomer/astro-sdk/pull/1991?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=astronomer#diff-cHl0aG9uLXNkay9zcmMvYXN0cm8vZGF0YWJhc2VzL2Jhc2UucHk=) | `94.35% <100.00%> (+2.10%)` | :arrow_up: | ... and [3 files with indirect coverage changes](https://app.codecov.io/gh/astronomer/astro-sdk/pull/1991/indirect-changes?src=pr&el=tree-more&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=astronomer)

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[pankajastro]

What do you think of removing the micro version and pinning only on the minor one? This way we can test the latest 2.6 releases

sorry @tatiana , I'm a bit confused are you talking about pinning a minor version of Airflow not micro for example pin 2.6 and not 2.6.3?

[pankajastro]

What do you think of removing the micro version and pinning only on the minor one? This way we can test the latest 2.6 releases

sorry @tatiana , I'm a bit confused are you talking about pinning a minor version of Airflow not micro for example pin 2.6 and not 2.6.3?

I run pip install apache-airflow==2.6 in a clean Python virtual env and it installed 2.6.0 and not the latest (2.6.3). I selected the last patch because I feel it most stable for a given minor version

[pankajastro]

What do you think of removing the micro version and pinning only on the minor one? This way we can test the latest 2.6 releases

sorry @tatiana , I'm a bit confused are you talking about pinning a minor version of Airflow not micro for example pin 2.6 and not 2.6.3?

I run pip install apache-airflow==2.6 in a clean Python virtual env and it installed 2.6.0 and not the latest (2.6.3). I selected the last patch because I feel it most stable for a given minor version

I tried to use 2.6.* but in this case, it uses cache if available so maybe it would not install latest until we pass no-cache param

[pankajastro]

I'll address the CI config changes in a separate PR since the original purpose of this PR was to revert https://github.com/astronomer/astro-sdk/pull/1981 and the ci config came into the picture since tests were failing. thank you @tatiana for the clarification.