mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 10:48:12 +02:00
Devin Foley
6691c57e54
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Stable release notes live at `releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md` on master as the durable record > - v2026.817.0 shipped from a candidate branch, so its notes file exists on that branch and in the GitHub Release, but not yet on master > - This pull request lands the exact shipped notes at the canonical path > - The benefit is a complete stable-notes record on master, and the FULL RELEASE NOTES link in announcements resolves ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The `releases/` record on master. **Current behavior** `releases/` on master ends at `v2026.722.0.md`. The v2026.817.0 notes exist only on `candidate/release-2026.817.0` and in the published GitHub Release. **Proposed behavior** `releases/v2026.817.0.md` exists on master, byte-identical to what the release published. **Reason and benefit** Complete history at the canonical path; the standard notes link (`releases/v2026.817.0.md` on master) resolves for the announcement. ## What Changed - Add `releases/v2026.817.0.md`, taken verbatim from the candidate branch the release was published from (tag `v2026.817.0`, commit `213dabab4`). ## Verification - `git diff v2026.817.0 -- releases/v2026.817.0.md` against this branch is empty (byte-identical to the shipped file). - Docs-only; no code surface. ## Risks - None; docs-only. The candidate branch is deleted after this merges (the `v2026.817.0` tag keeps its commits reachable). ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (Claude Code) ## Pre-submission 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