Yes, I still think we should continue using the format. Thanks & Regards, Amogh Desai
On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 11:59 AM Wei Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > I think I didn't phrase it very clearly 🤦♂️ What I meant is that this is > the format check for significant news fragments: > > **Types of change** > > - [ ] DAG changes > - [ ] Config changes > - [ ] API changes > - [ ] CLI changes > - [ ] Behaviour changes > - [ ] Plugin changes > - [ ] Dependency changes > > I also think we should continue to keep significant news fragments — I > just wanted to confirm that we still want to use this format. > > Best, > Wei > > > On Mar 17, 2026, at 1:44 PM, Amogh Desai <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I am in favour of keeping it. It helps in issuing news fragments with > > structure. > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > Amogh Desai > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 11:11 AM Rahul Vats <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> +1 We should keep significant news fragments. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Rahul Vats > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 at 07:54, Zhe-You(Jason) Liu <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> I agree with Jarek and Ferruzzi about keeping the significant news > >>> fragment. > >>> > >>> From my perspective, the news fragment serves a similar role to ADRs > >>> (Architectural Decision Records), providing an explicit way to record > >> major > >>> discussions and behavior changes. We have ADRs for Breeze [1], so > keeping > >>> those news fragments as ADR-like records for Airflow Core would be a > nice > >>> way to help the repo track its decision history. > >>> > >>> [1] https://github.com/apache/airflow/tree/main/dev/breeze/doc/adr > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> Jason > >>> > >>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 9:12 AM Ferruzzi, Dennis <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Personally I like it for major updates and features. > >>>> ________________________________ > >>>> From: Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> > >>>> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2026 4:00 AM > >>>> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > >>>> Subject: RE: [EXT] [DISCUSS] Do we still need the significant > >>> newsfragment > >>>> check introduced in #44378? > >>>> > >>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do > not > >>>> click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and > >>> know > >>>> the content is safe. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> AVERTISSEMENT: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un expéditeur > >> externe. > >>>> Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si vous ne > >>> pouvez > >>>> pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes pas certain > >>> que > >>>> le contenu ne présente aucun risque. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I think it's still quite useful > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 11:48 AM Wei Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi all, > >>>>> > >>>>> The significant newsfragment check was introduced in #44378 [1] > >> mainly > >>>> to support the Airflow 2 to 3 migration and track breaking changes. (I > >>>> thought we only added significant newsfragments for breaking changes > >> back > >>>> then, but Jed corrected me sometime after that.) > >>>>> > >>>>> Now that Airflow 3 is out, do we still need it? Or maybe we can just > >>>> remove it. > >>>>> > >>>>> Best, > >>>>> Wei Lee > >>>>> > >>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/44378 > >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
