Thanks Shrividya! On version awareness, most users are data engineers and in my experience, triaging issues, they generally know the version against which bug is being raised. I have not really come across cases where someone picked the wrong version because they were unsure. On the "Other Airflow 3 version" option, I think the intent was to keep the dropdown from growing too long as new patch versions are released, rather than a sign that the dropdown is not solving the problem. A curated list actually makes it easier for reporters to pick the right value quickly.
I think the other changes in this PR are solid. Merging "What happened" and "How to reproduce" makes a lot of sense, and making OS and deployment optional is a good call. My concern is specifically around the free form text field, but happy to listen to other opinions as well Thanks, Rahul On Sun, 22 Mar 2026 at 12:10, Shrividya Hegde <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the response, Rahul! > > I get the reasoning behind the two-field setup, but I think the version > confusion problem exists with a dropdown too. A reporter who doesn't know > their exact version might just pick "3.x latest" even if they're on an > older release. The issue is that they don't know their version, not how > they're entering it. > > Also, having "Other Airflow 3 version" as an option in the dropdown is a > bit of a hint that the dropdown isn't really solving the problem on its > own. > > A simple text field with a placeholder like `e.g. 3.1.8` does the same job > with one less field, which is kind of the whole point of this PR. > > That said, if the group prefers keeping some structure, the conditional > field idea you mentioned is a good middle ground. > > +1 on unifying the core and providers templates too! > > On Sun, 22 Mar, 2026, 2:24 am Rahul Vats, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Thanks for raising this, Shrividya. I am totally in favor of simplifying > > templates. > > > > One thing I wanted to clarify on the current two-field setup: the > dropdown > > covers the common versions (2.x, 3.x latest, main), and the secondary > text > > field is there for users who pick "Other Airflow 3 version" so they are > not > > really redundant, they serve different purposes. > > > > My hesitation with a fully free-text field is the version format. 3.1.8, > > v3.1.8, airflow 3.1.8, 3.1 are all valid ways someone might type the same > > version. The placeholder added in the PR helps, but it does not enforce a > > format. One thing worth exploring: can the "If Other Airflow 3 version > > selected, which one?" field be shown conditionally only when "Other > Airflow > > 3 version" is selected in the dropdown? That would reduce the visual > noise > > without losing the structure we have today. > > > > Also +1 to Shahar's idea of unifying the core and providers bug report > > templates. That feels like the bigger simplification win in reducing the > > current template count. > > > > Thanks, > > Rahul > > >
