Thanks, Jarek, for bringing this up. I am also aligned with Shahar on this.

If it is a reproducible bug, users should go ahead and create an issue with
clear steps to reproduce. In the case of a new feature request, or if they
are not sure whether it’s a bug, we should use Discussions instead of
creating issues.

Regards,
Rahul Vats

On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 at 04:02, Shahar Epstein <[email protected]> wrote:

> Thanks for bringing it up Jarek, had my comments on the PR.
>
> My main concern is regarding referring people to open GitHub discussions
> instead of GitHub issues as a default choice, due to the following reasons:
> 1. It's not really suitable for informing of real reproducible bugs, or
> suggesting feature requests (if this specifically is a misunserstanding of
> the original intent - I'll be happy if you could clarify that part).
> 2. Currently it's a dead spot for most of maintainers/triages - we should
> agree to show more precense there. Otherwise, the statement "Discussions
> are better than issues" is rather null, IMO.
>
> Other than that, as I wrote in the previous thread - I'm ok with giving it
> a chance and see how it goes.
>
>
> Shahar
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2026, 17:52 Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Following the discussion in
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/slgcqs2csn1fngn65g5srrqn8xtsghn7
>>
>> I wanted to propose a Lazy consensus on the change - described in the PR
>> here: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/62417
>>
>> I tried to capture most of the discussed points, but the PR is not
>> "final".
>> I propose we continue discussing any concerns there as comments and
>> suggestions, and I hope we can agree on the approach and wording.
>>
>> It might be helpful to push back against AI-generated content and people
>> who somehow treat assignments as a "badge."
>>
>> I will keep the PR running until Monday next week (March 2nd, 6 PM
>> CEST)—hoping we get enough approvals and resolved comments and no
>> unresolved oppositions (in the form of "request change" or unresolved
>> comments).
>>
>> J.
>>
>

Reply via email to