Skip to content

The v1.1.0 release notes name the release commit, its digest and the 60 pull requests to it, and leave only the four values the tag gives - #4

Merged
brettheap merged 4 commits into
mainfrom
l2-release-notes-v1.1.0
Oct 28, 2026
Merged

brettheap merged 4 commits into
mainfrom
l2-release-notes-v1.1.0

Conversation

@brettheap

@brettheap brettheap commented Oct 28, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Part of opensoft/openRepoTools#228 and opensoft/openRepoTools#186. This is S16's first step, on Brett Heap's word "a" of 2026-10-28T19:24:31Z, which lane openRepoTools-3 relayed in opensoft/openRepoTools#186 (comment 6478511015):

Four commits change one file, docs/release-notes/v1.1.0.md (blob 1d41db3f before), with 20 insertions and 18 deletions:

  1. 8e4635d, the fill-in:
  2. 166c110, lane 3's three wording corrections. They come from its re-check of The v1.1.0 notes now say that the fixes for #255 and #280 are part of 1.1.0 and list, by area and from the squash titles of aaa7bc8..a42946e, what else changed on main since v1.0.0 (#228) openRepoTools#293 (comment 6315668503, "For the tag-time pass", which gives each corrected line whole):
  3. 9211acb, the one-line install's --version, which lane 3 asked for in Triad migration (feature 004-migrate-to-triad): execution tracking under Brett Heap's word of 2026-10-07 openRepoTools#186 comment 6479087079.
    • Since the split, the documented one-liners fetch the assembly root's front door. It resolves main once to a commit and runs the implementation with OPENREPOTOOLS_REF set to it (root openRepoTools:388-392 at 2a99dd4).
    • So --version (code openRepoTools:5224 at 2a057a6d) prints that commit, where v1.0.0's printed main. A checkout still prints main by default (:73).
    • Two lines said that the one-line install prints main by default, as in v1.0.0: the --version item and the one-line install's item under "Install and upgrade". Both now say what each route prints.
  4. 6681d57, two of lane 4's NITs from its READY at 9211acb (Triad migration (feature 004-migrate-to-triad): execution tracking under Brett Heap's word of 2026-10-07 openRepoTools#186 comment 6479419189):

Lane 4's check (comment 6479419189) found #4 READY at 9211acb, with no MUST, no SHOULD and six NITs:

  • N2 and N3 are in commit 4;
  • N4 is answered by the mapping of the 60 pull requests to their lines, in this pull request's comments;
  • N1, N5 and N6 concern the recount and the checklist, which the second pull request cuts, so they go to it.

Left for the second pull request, after PyPI serves 1.1.0:

Checks on the file:

  • Above "Before the tag", only those four placeholders remain, each in code font.
  • Outside code, the only angle-bracket text is the draft comment and the milestone's autolink.
  • Every paragraph is one line.
  • There is no host path and no non-ASCII character.

Lane: openRepoTools-2

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

brettheap and others added 2 commits October 28, 2026 19:50
…60 pull requests to it, and leave only the four values the tag gives

The tag-time pass over lane 3's draft, on Brett Heap's word of
2026-10-28T19:24:31Z as lane 3 relayed it (opensoft/openRepoTools#186
comment 6478511015): lane 2 fills in the placeholders in a spec-leg pull
request, lane 4 checks it, and lane 3 merges it. Each value was read offline from
opensoft/openRepoTools-code at the release commit,
2a057a6d84e58c8acb4bda20d2b7b667b552c3fe (tree 196299f), or from
opensoft/openRepoTools's history.

- The release commit is 2a057a6d84e58c8acb4bda20d2b7b667b552c3fe, the
  code leg's main: the merge of opensoft/openRepoTools-code#1, and the
  commit the assembly root's `code` gitlink pins at 2a99dd4
  (opensoft/openRepoTools#344). It is written in full in the first
  paragraph and in both `--version` lines that carry it, because
  `package_version` prints the stamp's COMMIT as it is
  (openRepoTools:5193-5197) and `stamp_read` holds it to 40 lowercase hex
  (openRepoTools:749); the repository is the run's GITHUB_REPOSITORY, as
  the stamp step writes it (release.yml:706).
- The digest is 31123e2d08efe36583e72956ed8b8dbbe4b968c75402b59af5b8952be83ef6d5,
  sorted-ls-tree-r-v1 of that commit's 92 ls-tree records, the gitlink
  included. release.yml:601-653 computes it with the pinned openRepoShape
  190133d's scripts/repo_shape.py `tree_digest`; that function, the copy in
  tests/test_test_roots.py:126-132 under `python3 -I`, and `git ls-tree -r
  -z | LC_ALL=C sort -z | tr '\0' '\n' | sha256sum` all give this value.
- The count is 60: aaa7bc8..33ce26d on opensoft/openRepoTools's main is 59
  commits, none a merge, each subject ending in one distinct pull request
  number; the legs were carved from 33ce26d, and the code leg then took
  opensoft/openRepoTools-code#1 (6314fc8, bc7c831, 6c53c9e, 1e6f2d1). The
  first paragraph's sentence now names both repositories.
- The list of other changes is redone over the 60. 51 pull requests had
  their lines, and the six of opensoft/openRepoTools#228's package series
  are carried by that issue's lines, as the draft counts them.
  opensoft/openRepoTools#299 and opensoft/openRepoTools-code#1 now have
  lines under the triad migration's records, and opensoft/openRepoTools#293
  a line of its own at the end of the list, each written from its commit
  message and diff. The placeholder's line is cut.
- opensoft/openBenches#165 is open and has not landed (read 2026-10-28,
  last updated 2026-10-18), so the one-route paragraph stands.
- Checked at the release commit and left as written: the hook pair
  (openRepoTools:185-188, :2356-2434, :3364-3395 and :3622-3663; the README
  that says it is now the assembly root's), the openRepoShape pin
  (contracts/openreposhape-pin.yaml:54 and the upstream/openRepoShape
  gitlink both name 190133d, openRepoShape's v1.1.0), the milestone's six
  entries, the CI paragraph (tests.yml:68-75 and its four jobs) and the
  two release.yml paragraphs (release.yml is the blob 33ce26d had).

"Before the tag" marks each item this settles, with its result and the
date. The four values only the tag gives, `<release-date>`, `<tag-time>`,
`<tag-words>` and `<pypi-url>`, stay as placeholders, with their items, the
draft comment and the last line, for the pull request that fills them in.

Part of opensoft/openRepoTools#228 and opensoft/openRepoTools#186.

Lane: openRepoTools-2
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…check of opensoft/openRepoTools#293 gave for the tag-time pass

Lane openRepoTools-3's re-check of the notes in opensoft/openRepoTools#293
(comment 6315668503, MERGE AFTER FIXES) left one SHOULD and two NITs, all
wording, "for the tag-time pass", and gave each corrected line whole. This
commit puts in those two lines byte for byte:

- F1, SHOULD, with F2, NIT, in the line on opensoft/openRepoTools#255 and
  opensoft/openRepoTools#271: "a leg whose directory, or one above it" read
  as a directory above the leg, which is opensoft/openRepoTools#272's case.
  The dependency is now unreadable where this account cannot search its
  directory, or a directory above it inside the leg, the rule of
  probe_uninitialized's docstring. "One known gap remains" becomes "A known
  gap remains", since opensoft/openRepoTools#272 holds a second case too.
- F3, NIT, in the line on opensoft/openRepoTools#209: "and it stops counting
  the bash files in prose" had no antecedent, and now reads "and the bash
  files are no longer counted in prose".

Nothing else changes.

Part of opensoft/openRepoTools#228 and opensoft/openRepoTools#186.

Lane: openRepoTools-2
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@sourcery-ai

sourcery-ai Bot commented Oct 28, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Reviewer's guide (collapsed on small PRs)

Reviewer's Guide

This PR updates the v1.1.0 release notes in one file, replacing known placeholders with the release commit, independently computed tree digest, 60-pull-request accounting, and release-time verification results while intentionally retaining the four values that can only be filled after tagging and PyPI publication.

Flow diagram for v1.1.0 release-note verification

flowchart LR
    Source["Release commit 2a057a6d84e58c8acb4bda20d2b7b667b552c3fe"] --> Digest["Tree digest 31123e2d08efe36583e72956ed8b8dbbe4b968c75402b59af5b8952be83ef6d5"]
    Source --> Version["--version output"]
    Digest --> Version
    Version --> Notes["v1.1.0 release notes"]
    Notes --> Remaining["Four post-tag placeholders remain"]
Loading

Flow diagram for v1.1.0 pull-request accounting

flowchart LR
    Previous["v1.0.0 commit aaa7bc8"] --> Main["59 squash commits through 33ce26d"]
    Main --> Code["opensoft/openRepoTools-code#1"]
    Code --> Release["Release commit 2a057a6d84e58c8acb4bda20d2b7b667b552c3fe"]
    Release --> Count["60 pull requests named in the notes"]
Loading

File-Level Changes

Change Details Files
Filled the release notes with the v1.1.0 release commit, tree digest, pull-request count, and complete change accounting.
  • Recorded the 40-hex release commit and its sorted-ls-tree-r-v1 digest in the overview and package version output.
  • Replaced the pull-request count and placeholder change list with coverage for all 60 relevant pull requests across the assembly and code repositories.
  • Updated the triad migration entries for the release-specific changes and corrected the related wording for #255/#271 and #209.
  • Recorded the release-time state of workBenches#165, the hook-pair behavior, the openRepoShape pin, and the milestone review.
docs/release-notes/v1.1.0.md
Preserved the remaining post-tag release values and draft workflow for the follow-up release-notes update.
  • Kept release date, tag metadata, and PyPI URL placeholders unticked until the tag and PyPI publication exist.
  • Left the pre-tag checklist, draft comment, and final cleanup work for the subsequent pull request.
  • Documented the unresolved validation requirement that the recorded tree digest must match the branch rehearsal's --version output.
docs/release-notes/v1.1.0.md

Tips and commands

Interacting with Sourcery

  • Trigger a new review: Comment @sourcery-ai review on the pull request.
  • Continue discussions: Reply directly to Sourcery's review comments.
  • Generate a GitHub issue from a review comment: Ask Sourcery to create an
    issue from a review comment by replying to it. You can also reply to a
    review comment with @sourcery-ai issue to create an issue from it.
  • Generate a pull request title: Write @sourcery-ai anywhere in the pull
    request title to generate a title at any time. You can also comment
    @sourcery-ai title on the pull request to (re-)generate the title at any time.
  • Generate a pull request summary: Write @sourcery-ai summary anywhere in
    the pull request body to generate a PR summary at any time exactly where you
    want it. You can also comment @sourcery-ai summary on the pull request to
    (re-)generate the summary at any time.
  • Generate reviewer's guide: Comment @sourcery-ai guide on the pull
    request to (re-)generate the reviewer's guide at any time.
  • Resolve all Sourcery comments: Comment @sourcery-ai resolve on the
    pull request to resolve all Sourcery comments. Useful if you've already
    addressed all the comments and don't want to see them anymore.
  • Dismiss all Sourcery reviews: Comment @sourcery-ai dismiss on the pull
    request to dismiss all existing Sourcery reviews. Especially useful if you
    want to start fresh with a new review - don't forget to comment
    @sourcery-ai review to trigger a new review!

Customizing Your Experience

Access your dashboard to:

  • Enable or disable review features such as the Sourcery-generated pull request
    summary, the reviewer's guide, and others.
  • Change the review language.
  • Add, remove or edit custom review instructions.
  • Adjust other review settings.

Getting Help

sourcery-ai[bot]
sourcery-ai Bot previously approved these changes Oct 28, 2026

@sourcery-ai sourcery-ai Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hey - I've reviewed your changes and they look great!

Sourcery assessment

Approved.


Sourcery is free for open source - if you like our reviews please consider sharing them ✨

…the commit it resolved main to, and that a checkout's ref is still main by default

Since the triad split, the documented one-liners fetch the assembly root's
front door. Run from stdin, it resolves main once to a commit and runs the
implementation with OPENREPOTOOLS_REF set to that commit (root
openRepoTools:388-392 at 2a99dd4, and its header at :27-36). The
implementation's --version outside a package prints
"openRepoTools ($REPO @ $REF)" (openRepoTools:5224 at 2a057a6d), so the
one-line install now prints the assembly's repository and a 40-hex
commit, where v1.0.0's printed main. A checkout and an installed command
still print main, the default of REF (openRepoTools:73), since the
assembly's delegate_local sets none.

Two lines of the notes said that the one-line install prints main by
default, as in v1.0.0: the --version item under "What 1.1.0 adds" and the
one-line install's item under "Install and upgrade". Both now say what
each route prints. Lane openRepoTools-3, the notes' drafter, asked for this
in #4 as its third commit
(opensoft/openRepoTools#186 comment 6479087079), with lane 2's wording from
comment 6479062441.

Part of opensoft/openRepoTools#228 and opensoft/openRepoTools#186.

Lane: openRepoTools-2
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…RepoTools commit through the assembly root's front door since the triad migration, and cite opensoft/openRepoTools#304 as what the code leg's row-stamp cases are for

Two NITs from lane openRepoTools-4's diff-only check of
#4 (READY, opensoft/openRepoTools#186 comment
6479419189):

- N2. The commit the one-line install's --version now prints is a commit
  of opensoft/openRepoTools, which the assembly root's front door resolved
  main to (root openRepoTools:388-392 at 2a99dd4), not the release commit;
  and the change came with the triad migration, not with
  opensoft/openRepoTools#228, under whose item the sentence sits. The
  --version item now says so in lane 4's wording, crediting
  opensoft/openRepoTools#186, and the one-line install's item under
  "Install and upgrade" follows it.
- N3. In the line on opensoft/openRepoTools-code#1, the parenthetical
  "(opensoft/openRepoTools#304)" stood just before the line's own pull
  request and could be read as its source; it now reads "for
  opensoft/openRepoTools#304".

Nothing else changes.

Part of opensoft/openRepoTools#228 and opensoft/openRepoTools#186.

Lane: openRepoTools-2
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

@sourcery-ai sourcery-ai Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sourcery assessment

Approved.

@brettheap

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

The 60 pull requests and the notes' lines that carry them, as lane 2's post in opensoft/openRepoTools#186 (comment 6478683233) promised. Lane 4's N4 in comment 6479419189 asked for it.

Lane: openRepoTools-2

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant