A separate but related topic. How should we do if we did not add the newsfragment back to the time the change was made? If we create a follow-up PR for that, then we won't pass the CI check. Or should we just use the number of the follow-up PR?
Wei Lee <[email protected]> 於 2026年3月20日週五 下午6:06寫道： > It seems we don't have a strong consensus on this issue. If no one feels > strongly about whether we should keep it or remove it, and no one can > propose a compelling argument to persuade the other side, I will put this > matter to a vote. > > I initiated this discussion because it no longer serves my original > purpose. However, I'm okay if it still proves useful. I believe this is > more of a decision for release managers. (I guess these files are not used > elsewhere?) > > Kaxil Naik <[email protected]> 於 2026年3月18日週三 上午2:03寫道： > >> I'd be for removing the checkmark needed at the bottom. In recent releases >> I did, most of the things were touching more than one anyway and what went >> on actual release notes had nothing to do with the "type" >> >> **Types of change** >> >> - [ ] DAG changes >> - [ ] Config changes >> - [ ] API changes >> - [ ] CLI changes >> - [ ] Behaviour changes >> - [ ] Plugin changes >> - [ ] Dependency changes >> >> On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 at 09:59, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Yeah. The format is cool - we might consider adding or removing some >> > areas - but I think it's a good setup + automation. >> > >> > J. >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 8:24 AM Ephraim Anierobi >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > > I’m on the same page as Wei about removing the format check. >> > > >> > > For our uses now, requiring a title and description is enough to >> capture >> > > significant changes. >> > > >> > > - Ephraim >> > > >> > > On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 at 08:07, Amogh Desai <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > >> > > > 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] >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > >> > >> >
