Copy 2.11.2 release notes to main - #70648
Conversation
The 2.11.2 notes were only ever written on the 2.11 branch, so every release-notes page built from main since — including the 3.2.2 and 3.3.0 docs, both published after 2.11.2 shipped — jumps straight from 2.11.1 to 3.0, leaving users with no record of what that release contained. closes: apache#69882
4d9a4c3 to
6b7ebec
Compare
|
Hi maintainer, this PR was merged without a milestone set.
|
Backport failed to create: v3-3-test. View the failure log Run detailsNote: As of Merging PRs targeted for Airflow 3.X In matter of doubt please ask in #release-management Slack channel.
You can attempt to backport this manually by running: cherry_picker ea7f1cf v3-3-testThis should apply the commit to the v3-3-test branch and leave the commit in conflict state marking After you have resolved the conflicts, you can continue the backport process by running: cherry_picker --continueIf you don't have cherry-picker installed, see the installation guide. |
The 2.11.2 release notes were written on the 2.11 branch but never copied to
main, the way #62271 did for2.11.1.
RELEASE_NOTES.rsttherefore jumps straight from 2.11.1 (2026-02-20) toAirflow 3.0, and every release-notes page built from
mainsince inherits thegap — including the 3.2.2 and 3.3.0 docs, both published well after 2.11.2
shipped on 2026-03-11.
This copies the 2.11.2 section verbatim from the
2.11.2tag and drops it infront of 2.11.1, keeping the file's series-then-reverse-chronological order.
reproducible_build.yamlis updated by theupdate-reproducible-source-date-epochhook, same as the 2.11.1 copy.
The already-published
3.2.2and3.3.0doc archives stay as they are — thosepages are frozen at their release builds, so restoring 2.11.2 there needs a docs
republish from the corresponding release branches, which is a release-manager
action rather than something this PR can do.
closes: #69882
Was generative AI tooling used to co-author this PR?
Generated-by: Claude Code (Opus 5) following the guidelines