Repository navigation
docs(roadmap): file the station selection as shipped in v0.5.0 - #48
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Step 4 of `docs/releasing.md`: the release that carries the work has gone out, so it moves from *In progress — not yet released* to a version a reader can install and check. v0.5.0 was published at 20:05, and its release notes carry the acquire entries, so the claim resolves. The closing paragraph goes back to saying there is no in-progress section, which is true again — it was reworded when the section appeared and is the sentence the page most easily leaves stale. The 1.0 criterion gets a second observation, and it is not clean either. v0.5.0 renamed nothing and moved no signature, but `max_radius_km` cuts differently, so the same config can select different stations, and three radius values that used to be accepted are now refused. Twice in a row is worth naming as a pattern: what keeps moving is not the API but what it does with a setting that was already there, which a deprecation cycle cannot protect and 1.0 will not change. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
sgjholt
marked this pull request as ready for review
September 19, 2026 20:14
sgjholt
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 27, 2026
release-please generated the 0.6.0 Documentation section with the roadmap entry twice: once for 9f35727, the commit, and again for ed4e10c, the merge commit of #48. That merge commit's body repeated the commit's subject, which parses as a Conventional Commit, so release-please read it as a second commit. This keeps the entry that points at the commit and drops the one that points at the merge. Hand-edited, like the 0.2.0 heading and the 0.5.0 acquire entries, with a comment saying why. release-please only prepends to the file, so the edit survives the next release. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Important
Merge with a merge commit, not a squash. One commit here, so a squash would probably keep the subject — but "probably" is what cost the last release its changelog entry.
Step 4 of
docs/releasing.md, now that v0.5.0 is published (20:05 UTC, tag on4c647cc).What changed
## In progress — not yet released→## Shipped in v0.5.0. The station-selection work now names a version a reader can install and check, which is the whole point of the distinction the page draws.On that second observation
v0.5.0 renamed nothing and moved no signature. But
max_radius_kmcuts against true WGS84 distance now, so the same config can select a different set of stations than it did before, and three radius values that used to be accepted — zero, negative, a minimum outside the maximum — are refused when the config is read. A config is as much a caller as a call site.Twice in a row seemed worth naming rather than logging twice: what keeps moving is not the API, it is what the API does with a setting that was already there. A deprecation cycle cannot protect against that — there is nothing to deprecate — so the upgrading guide is the only thing that does, and 1.0 will not change that.
That is a judgement about your release and your 1.0 bar, not a fact I can check. Overrule it and I will reword; the section rename and the closing paragraph stand on their own.
Verification
Both roadmap checks pass on this: every version the page names has a
CHANGELOG.mdheading, and the page is not behind the published minor.Release note, for the record
The hand-edited changelog survived into the published release. https://github.com/sgjholt/SpecMod/releases/tag/v0.5.0 carries the
acquireentries pointing at2af57e8, under Features and Bug Fixes, rather than release-please's generated line calling the work documentation. So the PR body is what becomes the release notes, and therefore what Zenodo archives — worth knowing for next time.🤖 Generated with Claude Code
Generated by Claude Code