Abhishekmishra2808 commented on issue #60725: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/60725#issuecomment-3829282941
Hi @potiuk, I’ve been following this proposal and would like to help implement automation for provider breaking changes. Based on the discussion, I’d like to propose a high-level approach and get the community’s steer on the preferred **source of truth** before starting: ### 1. Source of Truth I see two viable options: * **Newsfragments:** More explicit and consistent with Airflow Core. * **Conventional Commits:** Lower friction for contributors (e.g. `feat!:` or `BREAKING CHANGE:`). *Question:* Is there a consensus on what’s preferred for providers? I’m happy to implement whichever the RMs feel is more sustainable long-term. ### 2. Proposed Technical Approach * **Automated CI validation:** Extend existing CI logic to detect changes under `airflow/providers/**` and enforce the presence of breaking-change metadata when public APIs or provider structure are modified (without relying on PR labels). * **Release tooling integration:** Once the metadata source is decided, explore extending provider release tooling (likely within Breeze) to aggregate these markers and auto-populate the “Breaking Changes” section in `CHANGELOG.rst`. * **Scope & PoC:** Start with a single provider (e.g. `amazon`) as a proof of concept before generalizing across all providers. If this direction aligns with the project’s goals, I’m happy to start with a PoC PR. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
