+1 binding. - Ran SVN check - Performed reproducible package checks - Signatures - Checksums - Licenses
Installed 2.11.1rc2 with breeze and ran a couple of random dags, it all seems to work fine. (though it is REALLY odd to use the 2.x UI now!) Thanks & Regards, Amogh Desai On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 12:48 PM Rahul Vats <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 (binding) for apache-airflow > verified > - SVN > - Reproducible package builds > - Licence > - Signature > - Checksums > > Also verified running example Dags all look good! > > Regards, > Rahul Vats > > On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 at 04:54, Buğra Öztürk <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Great to know, thanks Jarek! > > > > In this case, +1 binding to providers/fab. > > > > Thanks for preparing the release as well Jarek! This wasn't an easy one. > > > > Bugra Ozturk > > > > > > > > On Wed, 18 Feb 2026, 23:52 Jarek Potiuk, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > That's fine - those are all generated files, just missing (due to > **old** > > > release tooling from exclusions - we are not supposed to have licence > for > > > generated files) > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2026 at 10:50 PM Buğra Öztürk <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > For apache-airflow, +1 (binding) > > > > I have checked, > > > > - SVN > > > > - Reproducible package builds > > > > - Licence > > > > - Signature > > > > - Checksums > > > > > > > > I have checked with diffoscope and see only that the `generated/` > part > > > was > > > > different. It is indeed coming from old local builds, where, in > release > > > > checks, we are not mentioning the cleaning generated. We have only > part > > > > related to cleaning the `dist/` directory. > > > > > > > > For providers/fab, > > > > I have checked, > > > > - SVN > > > > - Reproducible package builds > > > > - Licence > > > > - Signature > > > > - Checksums > > > > > > > > Other than the Licence check, it looks good. To double-check, I used > > both > > > > apache-rat-0.17 and apache-rat-0.13, as stated in the version docs > and > > > the > > > > latest. Both showed the files as unapproved. Please let me know if I > > > missed > > > > anything. > > > > ``` apache-rat-0.13 > > > > Files with unapproved licenses: > > > > > > > > ./apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.4-py3-none-any.whl.asc > > > > ./apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.4-py3-none-any.whl.sha512 > > > > ./apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.4.tar.gz.asc > > > > ./apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.4.tar.gz.sha512 > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > ``` apache-rat-0.17 > > > > ***************************************************** > > > > Files with unapproved licenses > > > > ***************************************************** > > > > > > > > /apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.4-py3-none-any.whl.asc > > > > /apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.4-py3-none-any.whl.sha512 > > > > /apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.4.tar.gz.asc > > > > /apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.4.tar.gz.sha512 > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2026 at 2:23 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > No big deal if missing and we can explain the difference being that > > one > > > > > file. > > > > > > > > > > I think it could be an artefact of switching branches. This file is > > > > > generated in Airflow 3 and used to check if the file changed - in > > > Airflow > > > > > 2's breeze it was not generated at all - because > > > > provider_dependencies.json > > > > > was committed to git repo. So likely what happened when you > > > > > switched branches this file was "left-over". > > > > > > > > > > One way to check it is to run in a newly checked out repo (or > > > worktree). > > > > > > > > > > J. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2026 at 1:38 PM Shahar Epstein <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > When running the reproducible package check I got that the file > > > > > > generated/provider_dependencies.json.sha256sum exists in > > > > > > dist/apache_airflow-2.11.1.tar.gz but is missing its equivalent > > > > asf-dist. > > > > > > Did I do something wrong or is it an actual issue? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shahar > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 2:43 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey fellow Airflowers, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have cut Airflow 2.11.1rc2 together with accompanying FAB > > > 1.5.4rc1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Notes:: > > > > > > > * Airflow 2.11.1 only supports Python 3.10, 3.11, 3.12 - Python > > 3.9 > > > > > > support > > > > > > > is dropped (reasons > > > > > > > explained in release notes) > > > > > > > * we have rc2 not rc1 for Airflow as there were fab dependency > > > issues > > > > > > with > > > > > > > rc1 already in PyPI, so I had to go with rc2 > > > > > > > * I have accidentally published 2.11.1 in PyPI (for now I > yanked > > > it) > > > > > due > > > > > > to > > > > > > > technical glitch during preparation (not enough memory for > Docker > > > for > > > > > > yarn > > > > > > > !!). If rc1 will pass testing, I will just unyank it. In case > we > > > will > > > > > > have > > > > > > > to cancel rc1, we will have to release 2.11.2. > > > > > > > * Documentation is not yet published using the new workflow - I > > > need > > > > to > > > > > > > make some modifications to fix the workflows for v2-11 branch - > > > but I > > > > > am > > > > > > > close and I should be able to publish the docs tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This email is calling a vote on both - airflow and fab > provider. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The vote will last at least 72 hours, from Tuesday, February > 17, > > > 2026 > > > > > > 0:00 > > > > > > > UTC > > > > > > > until Friday, February 17, 2026 0:00 UTC, and until 3 binding > +1 > > > > votes > > > > > > have > > > > > > > been received. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=8&iso=20260217T0-00&p1=1440 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Status of testing of the release is kept in > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/62056 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consider this my (binding) +1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Airflow 2.11.1rc2 is available at: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/airflow/2.11.1rc2/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *apache-airflow-2.11.1-source.tar.gz* is a source release that > > > comes > > > > > with > > > > > > > INSTALL instructions - the source file covers both Airflow and > > Fab. > > > > > > > *apache-airflow-2.11.1.tar.gz* is the binary Python "sdist" > > > release. > > > > > > > *apache_airflow-2.11.1-py3-none-any.whl* is the binary Python > > wheel > > > > > > > "binary" release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Docker images are available at: > > > > > > > https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/airflow/tags?name=2.11.1rc2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fab provider 1.5.4rc2 is available in: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/airflow/providers/2.11/2026-02-16/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.4.tar.gz* is the binary > Python > > > > > "sdist" > > > > > > > release. > > > > > > > *apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.4-py3-none-any.whl* is the > > binary > > > > > > Python > > > > > > > wheel "binary" release > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Public keys are available at: > > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/airflow/KEYS > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please vote accordingly: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [ ] +1 approve > > > > > > > [ ] +0 no opinion > > > > > > > [ ] -1 disapprove with the reason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only votes from PMC members are binding, but all members of the > > > > > community > > > > > > > are encouraged to test the release and vote with > "(non-binding)". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Airflow: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The test procedure for PMC members is described in: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/v2-11-stable/dev/README_RELEASE_AIRFLOW.md#verify-the-release-candidate-by-pmc-members > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The test procedure for contributors and members of the > community > > > who > > > > > > would > > > > > > > like to test this RC is described in: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/v2-11-stable/dev/README_RELEASE_AIRFLOW.md#verify-the-release-candidate-by-contributors > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note that the way to install airflow with `pip` or `uv` (for > > Python > > > > > 3.10) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [uv] pip install apache-airflow==2.11.1rc2 --constraint > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/apache/airflow/constraints-2.11.1rc2/constraints-3.10.txt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This should install both: apache-airflow==2.11.1rc2 and > > > > > > > apache-airflow-providers-fab==1.5.4rc1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please note that the version number excludes the `rcX` string, > so > > > > it's > > > > > > now > > > > > > > simply 2.11.1. This will allow us to rename the artifact > without > > > > > > modifying > > > > > > > the artifact checksums when we actually release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Release Notes: > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/2.11.1rc2/RELEASE_NOTES.rst > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > J. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Bugra Ozturk > > > > > > > > > >
