mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 10:48:12 +02:00
Devin Foleyandgithub-actions[bot]
c49336acdf
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Stable v2026.916.0 shipped today; its release notes were maintained during the beta window at `releases/beta/v2026.916.0-beta.0.md` > - The release workflow's canonicalize step renames the file to its canonical stable path once the promotion completes, pushing the rename to a branch for a human-opened pull request (bot-opened PRs trigger no CI) > - This pull request is that rename: `releases/beta/v2026.916.0-beta.0.md` → `releases/v2026.916.0.md` > - The benefit is that the published GitHub Release body and the in-repo notes file agree on the canonical path ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Routine post-release canonicalization for the `v2026.916.0` stable, generated by the release workflow's `canonicalize_stable_notes` job (run 35126040769). Content is byte-identical to the notes published on the GitHub Release. **What happened?** Stable promotion completed; the notes file needs its canonical name. **Expected behavior** `releases/v2026.916.0.md` exists on master matching the published release body. **Steps to reproduce** n/a — mechanical rename. ## What Changed - Rename `releases/beta/v2026.916.0-beta.0.md` to `releases/v2026.916.0.md` (no content change) ## Verification - Diff is a pure rename; content matches the published GitHub Release body for v2026.916.0 ## Risks - None — docs-only rename. ## Model Used None for the change itself (generated by the release workflow); PR opened via Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, 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 - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>