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]
