> 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?
We can always follow the procedure we use for all checks: require the "skip newsfragment check" label to be set. We can just follow what we do in 10 other similar cases. J,. On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 11:14 AM Wei Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
