potiuk opened a new pull request, #70948: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/70948
Follow-up to the review of #70932, in the spirit of #70258. ### Changelog entries should read for users, not for us The review of the 2026-08-01 wave found entries that only make sense inside the project. The skill said "Subjects must be the original commit subject … Don't paraphrase", which is right about not inventing behaviour but left no room to fix wording. This adds an explicit carve-out — rewrite the *wording*, never the *claim* — covering the four cases the review actually hit: | before | after | | --- | --- | | `… to prevent KPO race condition (#70595)` | `… to prevent KubernetesPodOperator race condition (#70595)` | | `Bump the fab-ui-package-updates group across 1 directory with 3 updates (#70604)` | `Bump prettier to 3.9.6, stylelint to 17.14.1, webpack to 5.109.0 (#70604)` | | `Remove noqa:S101 from production code (#70378)` | `Mark asserts under 'TYPE_CHECKING' in 'DocumentLoaderOperator' (#70378)` | | `Remove hard-coded deferrable crawler run from example_glue system test (#70206)` | `Remove hard-coded deferrable crawler run from example_glue (#70206)` | The Phase 5 defect scan gains matching checks for internal abbreviations and for version-less / grouped dependency bumps. ### A version bump supersedes the doc-only marker `classify-provider-changes` starts a provider's range at `docs/.latest-doc-only-change.txt` when that marker is present, so older doc-only and tooling commits stay hidden while nothing is pending. That suppression stops applying the moment the provider gets a real version bump — but a single discovery pass never sees the widened range, so those commits are dropped from the release. In the 2026-08-01 wave this silently lost `cohere` #69649, `dbt.cloud`/`presto`/`trino` #69478 and `papermill` #68322. The skill now says to re-run discovery after Phase 4a and names the tell: a provider whose commit count grows between two runs with no new merges. ### Misplaced notes have a second variant Phase 5 already checked for a `.. note::` above the first version header. It missed the case where prepending a new section pushes such a note *below* the new excluded block — no longer at the top of the file, so a top-of-file scan skips it. Hit `openai` (#69506) in this wave; `google` (#70869) was the already-documented variant. The check is now per-section. --- ##### Was generative AI tooling used to co-author this PR? - [X] Yes — Claude Code (Opus 5) Generated-by: Claude Code (Opus 5) following [the guidelines](https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/contributing-docs/05_pull_requests.rst#gen-ai-assisted-contributions) -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
