[Docs] Get Started in 5 Mins

[lzdanski]

Description

Adapts the Cosmos eBook "Run locally in 5 minutes" guide for the docs.

Related Issue(s)

Breaking Change?

None expected.

Checklist

• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation (if required)
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works - Tested in docs local build

[tatiana]

Hi @lzdanski, thanks for putting together this first PR!

I left some inline comments, but here’s some higher-level feedback to consider:

1. Should we clearly highlight this as new or recently reviewed content, so it’s distinguishable from older material?
2. Should this page be added to the doctree?
3. Do we want to recommend that end users install Git and clone a full repository just for a quickstart?
4. What are the tradeoffs between recommending Astro CLI versus plain Airflow standalone? Using Astro CLI introduces additional tooling overhead (containers, extra dependencies, etc.) that might not be necessary for a “Get Started” guide. We may want to consider an alternative set of steps that are agnostic to both Git and Astro CLI, and instead rely on Airflow standalone. For example:

$ python3 -m venv venv
$ source venv/bin/activate
$ pip install astronomer-cosmos
$ mkdir dags
$ curl -L https://raw.githubusercontent.com/astronomer/cosmos-demo/main/dags/basic/simple_dag.py -o dags/simple_dag.py
$ export AIRFLOW_HOME=`pwd`
$ airflow standalone

5. Do we want to include any screenshots in the quickstart?

[tatiana]

@lzdanski Do you have any questions about the feedback? I'd love to see the feedback addressed today, so we can move forward with the documentation improvements.

[tatiana]

I’d suggest using “DAG” rather than “Dag correct,” as it preserves the original acronym for Direct Acyclic Graph. We’ve been consistent with this capitalisation throughout the Cosmos repository documentation, and it would be great to maintain that consistency here as well.

I’m aware that the Apache Airflow community has had various discussions on this topic, and different conventions are used (e.g., Dag or dag). However, since this is within this repository, aligning with our established convention of “DAG” would help keep the documentation clear and consistent - especially for readers who may not be familiar with Airflow-specific approaches.

Alternatively, I’m equally comfortable using more general terms like “workflow” or “pipeline” if that better suits the context. For people starting, it is likely more intuitive.

Could you please update the references accordingly? I’ve pointed out a few instances, but there may be others.

[yetudada]

Just left a few comments

[pankajastro]

LGTM

[yetudada]

I'm happy on the changes but just see @pankajastro's last comments.