Yeah, I removed that label, too, to avoid any confusion. Once 3.0.0 is officially released, we’ll return to `backport-to-v3-0-test` for automatic backport -- where the PR author or a committer could do that -- but we can discuss than once we reach there.
I think we just need to clarify who and when should add the backport-to > labels PRS (if at all). Just to understand it. Because I understood it a > bit differently this morning. > I understand that you would prefer no one to set the backport label at all > and you will identify what to cherry pick and do it ? I am talking about > changes to 'airflow sources'. Do I understand correctly? And yeah absolutely about the CI-related changes. I am going to keep them updated and ask for help for sure if needed. On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 at 18:30, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > Just one comment - following our discussion.. I perfectly understand we > want to take more control now on what is merged. And if you want to take > responsibility there then I am fine ( but also do not envy you :) > > I think we just need to clarify who and when should add the backport-to > labels PRS (if at all). Just to understand it. Because I understood it a > bit differently this morning. > > I understand that you would prefer no one to set the backport label at all > and you will identify what to cherry pick and do it ? I am talking about > changes to 'airflow sources'. Do I understand correctly? > > I guess we allow some exceptions. > > I think (from past experience) would like to treat the CI / breeze related > changes a bit differently - things tend to decay there pretty quickly - we > still have some chicken/egg providers there and we have likely some doc > things to fix etc.etc.and it is far easier to cherry-pick all those changes > rather than subset of those. > > I will for sure want to keep on backporting (with label) all necessary CI > /breeze /dependency changes from main to keep builds green. Happy to wait > for your merges there, but I thi k also iterating on those backporting PR > to make the latest v3-0-test green will make your life easier and I am > happy to help with that. > > Not sure if there are other exceptions that are similar ? > > Does all I wrote make sense :) ? > > J. > > pt., 11 kwi 2025, 14:05 użytkownik Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> > napisał: > > > Hey everyone, > > > > As we approach the final stages of the Airflow 3.0.0 release, the main > > branch is now officially targeting Airflow 3.1. > > > > *What this means*: > > • PR authors and contributors should continue working as usual -- nothing > > changes in how PRs are submitted or merged. > > • However, starting now, all new changes merged into main will be > > considered part of 3.1. > > • If a change should be included in 3.0.0, I’ll cherry-pick it into the > > v3-0-test branch or rebase to main in case there are no 3.1 changes and > all > > changes merged-to-main are bugfixes and crucial for 3.0.0 - and I’ll > reach > > out to authors directly if anything needs clarification. > > > > *Why now?* > > > > We are at a stage where stability matters more than velocity. I expect > RC2 > > to help surface any remaining issues, and I’d like RC3 to be our final > RC. > > Having a tighter grip on post-RC2 changes gives us a better shot at > getting > > there without another RC cycle. > > > > I’ll actively sync main and v3-0-test multiple times a day and compare > > diffs between them to ensure no important changes are missed. If anything > > seems off, I’ll flag it in #contributors or #internal-airflow-ci-cd on > > Slack. If you find something that is missed, please reach out to me or on > > #airflow-3-dev Slack channel. > > > > *Why not wait?* > > > > Right now, the main and v3-0-tests branches are still very close, which > > makes it easier to maintain control and reduce risk. > > > > Using labels or backport flags doesn’t provide the same level of review > or > > assurance as I want to opt-in to reviewing each change then the opposite. > > > > This also gives us a chance to gradually clean up our `-stable` vs > `-test` > > branching process, which has drifted a bit in recent releases. > > > > I’m open to refining this if needed, but wanted to set expectations and > > keep things moving cleanly into the next cycle. > > > > I have created https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49119 in > preparation > > for that. > > > > Once 3.0.0 is officially released, we’ll return to a more explicit and > > automated process for backporting, similar to what we followed during the > > 2.x cycle. This means PRs intended for the 3.0.x line should either be > > labeled for backporting (e.g. `backport-to-v3-0-test`) or added to the > > relevant bugfix milestone. I will share more details and reminders once > we > > are at that point. > > > > Thanks everyone! > > > > Regards, > > Kaxil > > >
