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] > > > > >
