And of course label created. TIL: > gh label create "skip newsfragment check" --repo apache/airflow --description "Skip the newsfragment PR number check" --color "ededed" ✓ Label "skip newsfragment check" created in apache/airflow
J. On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 12:04 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/63983 -> adds skipping, updates > docs and informs the author that they can skip the check by setting the > label. > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 11:37 AM Wei Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > I think there are a lot of nuances between "remove" and "leave"—and that >> is a good example of that. >> >> I feel changing is more toward the "leave" decision 🤔, but yep, we can >> definitely find some middle ground. Then I'll keep this discussion open a >> bit longer and see whether we can have a consensus 🙂 >> >> > 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. >> >> Yep, sounds good 👍 I can work on that next week. But if anyone’s >> interested in adding it before me. Feel free to do so 🙂 >> >> Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> 於 2026年3月20日週五 下午6:23寫道： >> >> > > 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] >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
