Thanks for posting it Josef!
My intent was to discuss it in an even more broader perspective, as for
what types of GitHub issue templates we need today, and what fields we need
in each.
I hope that it's ok to take this thread in that direction.

I've outlined a more detailed suggestion on Airflow's wiki:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/BYg8G

tl;dr:
- Primary categorization of reportable issues by release type, with some
unions:
    - Airflow & Providers (& Task SDK & Python Client, omitted from title
from brevity)
    - CTL
    - Helm Charts
- Removal of secondary categorization by "issue type" (feature/bug)
- Removal of "docs" issues (see reasonings and alternatives in the proposal)
- Removal of external links to "Discussions" and "Stackoverflow"
- *In Airflow & Providers* - Reducing the number of required fields to 3


I'll be happy with Buğra & Jed's perspectives specifically regarding
optimizations in fields of CTL and helm charts,
and I'll appreciate everyone's feedback regarding my proposal in general.


Shahar


On Sat, Jan 31, 2026 at 4:17 PM Josef <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> I'd like to propose simplifying the bug report template by making the
> "Operating System" and "Deployment" fields optional instead of required.
>
>
> Pull Request: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/61285
>
>
> Currently, the bug report template requires 6 fields. This proposal would
> reduce mandatory fields from 6 to 4 by making OS and Deployment optional.
>
>
> Why?
>
>
> - Many core bugs don't depend on deployment method or OS
>
> - Users reporting deployment-specific issues naturally include this info
>
> - Making fields optional doesn't prevent users from providing the info when
> relevant
>
>
> @shahar1 raised valid concerns about losing/missing diagnostic information,
> particularly for managed services (like Cloud Composer). I proposed adding
> help text to explain when these fields are important rather than keeping
> them required at all times.
>
>
> Would appreciate your thoughts on this approach.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Josef
>

Reply via email to