mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-24 10:13:11 +02:00
## 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 workflow reads `releases/beta/v<beta-version>.md` from `master` at dispatch time and publishes that revision as the GitHub Release body > - The curated notes for `2026.1012.1-beta.0` (#16053) were written on 2026-10-13. They guessed the stable version `v2026.1015.0` and the date `2026-10-15`. That version did not ship > - The promotion is now set for 2026-10-23. `./scripts/release.sh stable --print-version --date 2026-10-23` on `master` returns `2026.1023.0` > - Nothing merged after the stable dispatch reaches the release page, so the header must be correct on `master` before the dispatch > - This pull request sets the header, the date, the intro version, and the contributor count. It changes no other text > - The benefit is that the public release page for v2026.1023.0 shows the correct version, date, and credits ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16053 **Issue type** Incorrect content **Where is the issue?** `releases/beta/v2026.1012.1-beta.0.md` on `master`: the H1, the `> Released:` line, the first sentence of the overview, and the first sentence of the Contributors section. **What's wrong?** The file names `v2026.1015.0` and `2026-10-15`. The stable that promotes this beta is `v2026.1023.0` on `2026-10-23`. The Contributors line says 6 contributors. `git shortlog -sn v2026.1012.0..1b4c803816e82b0265c8422e1a804327a7ed8c54` lists 8 authors. With `github-actions[bot]` excluded, as in `releases/v2026.1012.0.md`, the count is 7 (Dotta, Devin Foley, dependabot[bot], Nicky Leach, Michael Nguyen, Kilian, lorenzozane). **Suggested fix** Replace the four stale values. Keep every other line unchanged so the file still matches the audited content. ## What Changed - `# Paperclip v2026.1015.0` becomes `# Paperclip v2026.1023.0` - `> Released: 2026-10-15` becomes `> Released: 2026-10-23` - The overview sentence now reads `Paperclip v2026.1023.0 carries 200 commits, promoted from 2026.1012.1-beta.0` - The Contributors sentence now reads `This release has 200 commits from 7 contributors` - No other line changes. The credited handles `@lorenzozanee` and `@lusoris` stay as they were ## Verification - `git diff master..release-notes/v2026.1023.0-prepublish --stat` shows one file, 4 insertions, 4 deletions - `grep -n '1015\|2026-10-15' releases/beta/v2026.1012.1-beta.0.md` returns nothing on this branch - `./scripts/release.sh stable --print-version --date 2026-10-23` on `master` prints `2026.1023.0` - `git rev-list --count v2026.1012.0..1b4c803816e82b0265c8422e1a804327a7ed8c54` prints 200. The GitHub compare API for the same range also reports 200 - `git shortlog -sn v2026.1012.0..1b4c803816e82b0265c8422e1a804327a7ed8c54` lists 8 authors. 7 remain after `github-actions[bot]` is removed, which is the rule `releases/v2026.1012.0.md` used - All 129 `#NNNN` links in the file resolve to pull requests inside the range. The 71 in-range pull requests that the file does not cite are CI, tests, lockfile refreshes, heartbeat refactors, dependency bumps, release housekeeping, or Paperclip Cloud work (#15405, #15566, #15691, #15722) - Migrations `0306` to `0333` are the 28 `.sql` files added in the range. The three environment variables in the Upgrade Guide and their defaults match `server/src/services/authorization.ts` and `server/src/index.ts` at the source commit ## Risks - Low risk: a single markdown file, four lines. If the UTC day changes before the dispatch, the dispatch keeps `stable_date=2026-10-23` so the header and the tag agree ## 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>