Congratulations on your first Pull Request and welcome to the Apache Airflow community! If you have any issues or are unsure about any anything please check our Contributors' Guide (https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/contributing-docs/README.rst)
Here are some useful points:

• Pay attention to the quality of your code (ruff, mypy and type annotations). Our prek-hooks will help you with that.
• In case of a new feature add useful documentation (in docstrings or in docs/ directory). Adding a new operator? Check this short guide Consider adding an example DAG that shows how users should use it.
• Consider using Breeze environment for testing locally, it's a heavy docker but it ships with a working Airflow and a lot of integrations.
• Be patient and persistent. It might take some time to get a review or get the final approval from Committers.
• Please follow ASF Code of Conduct for all communication including (but not limited to) comments on Pull Requests, Mailing list and Slack.
• Be sure to read the Airflow Coding style.
• Always keep your Pull Requests rebased, otherwise your build might fail due to changes not related to your commits.
  Apache Airflow is a community-driven project and together we are making it better 🚀.
  In case of doubts contact the developers at:
  Mailing List: [email protected]
  Slack: https://s.apache.org/airflow-slack

Checking the linked discussion and knowing that default is 30s... and we see recently very many CI errors due to overloaded mirrors and sites - is it really a good idea to reduce timeout from 300s to 30s? I'd fear a degraded CI stability. (Or do we cance UV workspace/files on the runner making the uv runs independent of remote sites?)

The 30s are a read timeout now, meaning it will effectively only fire if no data was transmitted for that period. The current, higher timeout would only be helpful if you expect to have connections that are completely inactive for 30s, then recover to finish the download. (I tried simulating this locally by unplugging the network, but the only effect was that the connection was broken on the OS level and I had the timeout only caused the request to fail faster.)

Also note that this timeout was introduced before it was a read timeout, when there was still a total request timeout, where you need the >30s. Now, there is no total request timeout in uv anymore. We don't see any other major project that has adopted uv after that switch was made setting UV_HTTP_TIMEOUT.

You need to regenerate breeze docs with prek and remove - inconsistent now- definitions of commands for rich-click. The output of prek hook is quite clear.

Awesome work, congrats on your first merged pull request! You are invited to check our Issue Tracker for additional contributions.

Backport failed to create: v3-1-test. View the failure log Run details

Note: As of Merging PRs targeted for Airflow 3.X
the committer who merges the PR is responsible for backporting the PRs that are bug fixes (generally speaking) to the maintenance branches.

In matter of doubt please ask in #release-management Slack channel.

Status	Branch	Result
❌	v3-1-test

You can attempt to backport this manually by running:

cherry_picker 66b54f8 v3-1-test

This should apply the commit to the v3-1-test branch and leave the commit in conflict state marking
the files that need manual conflict resolution.

After you have resolved the conflicts, you can continue the backport process by running:

cherry_picker --continue

If you don't have cherry-picker installed, see the installation guide.