mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-08 00:54:38 +02:00
45ac4e945d
## 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 GitHub Release body comes from `releases/beta/v<beta-version>.md` on `master` > - The `draft_stable_notes` job pushed a commit-log skeleton to this branch when `2026.1006.0-beta.0` published today (workflow run 37516507660) > - The skeleton is grouped commit subjects. It is not in release-notes voice and it does not tell a self-hoster what to do before an upgrade > - This pull request replaces the skeleton with curated notes. Each claim traces to a pull request in `v2026.1005.0..22a3ea34` > - The benefit is that the earliest stable promotion (v2026.1009.0) finds finished notes on `master` on time ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing content **Where is the issue?** `releases/beta/v2026.1006.0-beta.0.md` — the stable-notes file for the `2026.1006.0-beta.0` soak. It exists only on this machine-owned branch and only as the auto-generated skeleton. **What's wrong?** The stable promotion reads this file from `master` and publishes it as the GitHub Release body. Until this branch merges, the stable preflight has no notes to resolve. The skeleton lists raw commit subjects with nested PR summaries. It does not call out the two changes that need operator action before the upgrade. **Suggested fix** Merge the curated notes so the notes invariant holds for the v2026.1009.0 promotion. Correct the `> Released:` date in a follow-up if the promotion date slips. ## What Changed - Replaced the skeleton in `releases/beta/v2026.1006.0-beta.0.md` with curated stable notes for v2026.1009.0 in the same layout as `releases/v2026.1005.0.md`: overview, Breaking Changes, Highlights, Fixes, Improvements, Upgrade Guide, Contributors - Breaking Changes lists the SQLite restore-lock protocol change (#14869) and stricter stored tool-grant enforcement (#14915) - Upgrade Guide enumerates migrations `0294` through `0305`, the three new default-off experimental settings, the `PAPERCLIP_CONNECTION_INSTRUCTIONS_FILE` contract for custom adapters, and the harness pin moves - Release and CI internals, smoke specs, and canary tooling are left out. Features already described in the v2026.1005.0 notes are not repeated ## Verification - Beta publish is complete: npm dist-tag `beta` is `2026.1006.0-beta.0`, tag `beta/v2026.1006.0-beta.0` points at `22a3ea3414e9039a538fbb0374b3cfa7fc4371eb`, and the `publish_beta`, `smoke_beta`, and `draft_stable_notes` jobs in run 37516507660 all succeeded - `git rev-list --count v2026.1005.0..22a3ea3414e9039a538fbb0374b3cfa7fc4371eb` returns 130, which matches the overview and Contributors section - `git shortlog -sn --no-merges` over the same range shows 8 human authors after the two bot accounts are excluded - `./scripts/release.sh stable --date 2026-10-09 --print-version` returns `2026.1009.0` - Every `#NNNN` link in the file resolves to a pull request inside the range. Migration numbers, setting keys, env var names, and defaults were checked in the code on the source commit, not in commit subjects - The file contains no internal ticket ids or instance-local links ## Risks - Low risk: a single markdown file, no source changes. If the promotion date slips past 2026-10-09, the `> Released:` line and H1 need a one-line update before the stable dispatch. The beta-keyed filename makes that re-date harmless ## 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: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>