docs(release): canonicalize stable notes for v2026.1023.0 (#17400)

Browse Source

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The release process promotes a soaked beta to stable. The stable run
publishes the curated notes from `releases/beta/v<beta-version>.md` on
`master` as the GitHub Release body
> - After the publish, the notes must move to
`releases/v<stable-version>.md` on `master`. That path is the canonical
location that the release announcements and the next release notes link
to
> - Stable `v2026.1023.0` was published on 2026-10-23 from beta
`2026.1012.1-beta.0`. The `canonicalize_stable_notes` job in run
40030701194 was skipped, so the workflow did not push this branch
> - This pull request does by hand what that job does: it renames the
beta notes file to the stable path. It changes no content
> - The benefit is that `releases/v2026.1023.0.md` exists on `master`
and is byte-identical to the published GitHub Release body

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #17373
Refs #16053

**Issue type**

Missing content

**Where is the issue?**

`releases/` on `master`. The stable notes for `v2026.1023.0` are only at
the beta path `releases/beta/v2026.1012.1-beta.0.md`. The canonical path
`releases/v2026.1023.0.md` does not exist.

**What's wrong?**

The GitHub Release
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/releases/tag/v2026.1023.0 is
published, but the `canonicalize_stable_notes` job of the release run
was skipped. The release announcements link to
`releases/v2026.1023.0.md` on `master`, and that link returns 404 until
this rename is merged.

**Suggested fix**

Rename the beta notes file to the stable path with no content change.
This is the same step the workflow job performs.

## What Changed

- `releases/beta/v2026.1012.1-beta.0.md` is renamed to
`releases/v2026.1023.0.md`. Git reports a 100% rename
- No line of the file changes. The blob is
`170e36dc971bc8f3a59fb574fc8cd19d366fc2d4`, the same blob the release
run pinned at `master` commit `e0d90339` when it created the GitHub
Release
- This pull request is a pure rename. It does not change the release
workflow

## Verification

- `git diff --stat -M100%
master...release-notes/v2026.1023.0-canonicalize` shows one renamed file
and no insertions or deletions
- `git rev-parse
release-notes/v2026.1023.0-canonicalize:releases/v2026.1023.0.md` prints
`170e36dc971bc8f3a59fb574fc8cd19d366fc2d4`
- `git rev-parse
e0d90339bfbde08ba804c1e527b781ac139075c7:releases/beta/v2026.1012.1-beta.0.md`
prints the same blob
- `gh api repos/paperclipai/paperclip/releases/tags/v2026.1023.0 --jq
.body | diff - releases/v2026.1023.0.md` reports only the one trailing
newline that `jq` adds to its output. The release body and the file have
the same bytes
- After merge,
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/master/releases/v2026.1023.0.md
returns 200 and the old beta path returns 404

## Risks

- Low risk: one markdown file moves and no content changes
- The release workflow's `canonicalize_stable_notes` job was skipped in
run 40030701194 although `publish_stable` succeeded and the notes mode
was `master_beta`. The job's `if` has no status function, so GitHub
applies an implicit `success()` that evaluates to false when an upstream
job in the chain was skipped (`release_runner_binaries` was skipped in
this run). A one-line `!cancelled() &&` guard, as `publish_stable`
already uses, fixes it. That fix is not in this pull request so this
stays a pure rename

## Model Used

- Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5-1` (Claude Fable 5.1),
extended thinking enabled, tool use via Claude Code

## Checklist

- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)

Co-authored-by: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>

...

This commit is contained in:

3 people authored and GitHub committed 2026-10-23 17:33:39 -07:00

1 parent 100477e887

commit 72a5fecb58

1 file changed

Show all changes Ignore whitespace when comparing lines Ignore changes in amount of whitespace Ignore changes in whitespace at EOL

Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

releases/beta/v2026.1012.1-beta.0.md → releases/v2026.1023.0.md

File renamed without changes.