Skip to content

Release authors can write self-contained upgrade notes - #537

Draft
Marius Storhaug (MariusStorhaug) wants to merge 6 commits into
mainfrom
release-note-standards
Draft

Marius Storhaug (MariusStorhaug) wants to merge 6 commits into
mainfrom
release-note-standards

Conversation

@MariusStorhaug

@MariusStorhaug Marius Storhaug (MariusStorhaug) commented Sep 5, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Release authors get a documentation and PR-authoring contract for complete, incremental upgrade records. The guidance makes published notes the sufficient reference for what changed, why, affected uses, compatibility, and exact consumer actions or an explicit no-action result.

Use the updated guide, PR template, and optional authoring skill for the next release-bound PR. Existing consumers need no workflow, configuration, code, or invocation changes from this documentation-only PR.

New: Authors can write complete consumer upgrade records

The authoring guide, repository PR template, and psmodule-release-note-authoring skill give authors one entry path into the shared format. The guide is discoverable from documentation navigation, the index, versioning and configuration guides, repository-standard references, and the plugin README. The skill stays a thin pointer with agent-specific handoff and stop conditions.

For the next release-bound PR:

  1. Identify the actual consumer-change release/source baseline and reconcile the complete delivered range, including earlier merged or skipped deltas. State verified semantic impact and applicable effective configuration; leave final numeric coordinates to the publisher.
  2. Write an audience-first title and summary, retain the summary marker, and group applicable results in Breaking, Removed, New, Changed, then Fixed order. Put each result's rationale, applicability, compatibility, exact actions or explicit no-action result, prerequisites, order, verification, and necessary old-to-new examples in its reader-facing prose. Keep its implementation evidence and related references scoped to that result.
  3. Keep resource documentation focused on supported current behavior, inputs, outputs, and usage. Keep release-specific transitions in the release record; preserve legitimate decision and research records. Verify that the notes contain all required upgrade instructions without requiring PR or diff inspection.

Consumers read every applicable release after their actual baseline through the target in order and compose the actions. Reading a record does not require installing that version. Later supersession instructions explain which edits remain while preserving explicitly required intermediate installations or runs. Missing required instructions are evidence gaps, not implicit no-action results. PRs and commit diffs remain optional depth.

This adds authoring guidance and scaffolding, not release-runtime behavior. Existing release-note settings, version resolution, labels, defaults, workflows, and publisher behavior remain unchanged. No integration-template update applies because this change does not alter a producer runtime or caller contract. No intermediate installation or consumer upgrade is required to adopt the guidance.

Technical details
  • The complete PR is documentation, PR-template, and plugin-prompt work against the main merge base 3505ca4b68b5c79e0b2a3051d0c33f2e9b275358.
  • The guide owns the complete authoring contract and a short illustrative published-release replay. The template follows the shared result structure; the skill links to the guide rather than duplicating its policy.
  • Shared-format consistency was checked against MSXOrg/docs#209 at 40346e7e03e05c218e1f365f604623d00d7e0acf, including PR Format, Release Management spec/design, and Documentation Model.
  • The existing NoRelease label is retained. This target route does not invoke shared MSX Release Management, so the conditional Release decisions block and namespaced release labels are omitted. No release resolver, publication envelope, workflow, or historical release-note correction is implemented here.
  • Plugin and marketplace metadata remain unchanged.
Changed surface Standards checked Framework docs checked Result
docs/content/guides/** Shared PR Format and Documentation Model Existing release-note defaults, versioning, and authoring contract Aligned
.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md Shared summary, classifier order, scoped evidence, and conditional release metadata Existing publishing route and configurable labels Aligned
.github/plugin/** Thin skill and plugin integration guidance Authoring guide and plugin discoverability Aligned
docs/zensical.toml, docs/content/index.md, docs/content/reference/repository-standard.md Documentation navigation and current-state reference guidance Published documentation structure Aligned

Validation

Command or review Result
npx --no-install markdownlint-cli2 --config .github/linters/.markdown-lint.yml .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md .github/plugin/README.md .github/plugin/psmodule/skills/psmodule-release-note-authoring/SKILL.md docs/content/guides/formatting-release-note-prs.md docs/content/guides/configuring-the-pipeline.md docs/content/guides/versioning-and-releases.md docs/content/index.md docs/content/reference/repository-standard.md Passed: eight changed Markdown files, no issues.
npm exec --offline --yes --package=textlint --package=textlint-rule-terminology --package=textlint-filter-rule-comments -- textlint --config .github/linters/.textlintrc .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md .github/plugin/README.md .github/plugin/psmodule/skills/psmodule-release-note-authoring/SKILL.md docs/content/guides/formatting-release-note-prs.md docs/content/guides/configuring-the-pipeline.md docs/content/guides/versioning-and-releases.md docs/content/index.md docs/content/reference/repository-standard.md Passed with the repository terminology configuration.
cd docs && zensical build --clean Passed: no issues, using an isolated Python 3.13 validation environment.
python3 -m json.tool .github/plugin/psmodule/plugin.json >/dev/null and python3 -m json.tool .github/plugin/marketplace.json >/dev/null Passed.
git diff --check origin/main...HEAD Passed.
Template structure, plugin registration, and relative-link review Passed: one summary marker, ordered classifiers, balanced scoped blocks, and valid skill/guide/README links.
Illustrative release-record replay Passed for an explicit timeout setting, an omitted setting retaining the default, and a patch-only baseline.

The illustrative content walkthrough reads the breaking v2.0.0 timeout-key transition and no-action v2.0.1 record from baseline v1.4.2. A consumer with timeout: 20 composes the notes, changes it to timeoutSeconds: 20 with the target upgrade, selects v2.0.1 directly, and verifies accepted configuration and timeout cancellation. A consumer omitting the key retains the 30-second default; a consumer already on v2.0.0 needs no configuration edit. No intermediate installation or PR/diff lookup is required. These are fictional published coordinates and a content check, not executed product tests or repository release history.

PowerShell/Pester tests, release publishers, and actual consumer upgrades were not run because this PR changes documentation, the PR template, and authoring prompts only.

Related references

Co-authored-by: GitHub Copilot <198982749+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: GitHub Copilot <198982749+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Sep 5, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Super-linter summary

Language Validation result
CHECKOV Pass ✅
CSS Pass ✅
CSS_PRETTIER Pass ✅
GITHUB_ACTIONS Pass ✅
GITHUB_ACTIONS_ZIZMOR Pass ✅
GITLEAKS Pass ✅
GIT_MERGE_CONFLICT_MARKERS Pass ✅
HTML Pass ✅
JAVASCRIPT_ES Pass ✅
JAVASCRIPT_PRETTIER Pass ✅
MARKDOWN Pass ✅
NATURAL_LANGUAGE Pass ✅
POWERSHELL Pass ✅
PRE_COMMIT Pass ✅
SPELL_CODESPELL Pass ✅
TRIVY Pass ✅
YAML Pass ✅

All files and directories linted successfully

For more information, see the GitHub Actions workflow run

Powered by Super-linter

Co-authored-by: GitHub Copilot <198982749+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
@MariusStorhaug Marius Storhaug (MariusStorhaug) changed the title 📖 [Docs]: Release notes now explain adoption and version impact 📖 [Docs]: Pull requests now control user-ready release notes Sep 5, 2026
Marius Storhaug (MariusStorhaug) added a commit to MSXOrg/docs that referenced this pull request Sep 6, 2026
Release-bound pull requests classify changes for their declared
user/integrator audience and describe the incremental actions that
audience needs to adopt them. Release levels come from an explicit
decision or an opt-in repository default; missing decisions must block
merge in CI. Published notes preserve the complete authored record and
its source/template evidence.

## Changed: Change type follows the target audience

Each initiative describes its audience and supported jobs; each
repository README states its audience or explicitly adopts that
definition and records any specialization. Users and integrators can be
the same people: PSModule module users integrate commands into their
work, and Process-PSModule users integrate the delivery workflow into
their module repositories.

Change type follows the highest impact on supported uses, not file
location, edit size, or the reviewer's perspective. An incompatible
output, runtime requirement, or caller interface remains breaking even
when an interactive command still works or only a manifest or `.github/`
file changes.

## Changed: Repository defaults are explicit policy decisions

For PR-driven releases, an owned bump label overrides the optional
`DefaultBump` in `.github/release.config.yml`. The setting accepts
`patch`, `minor`, or `major`. If neither supplies a level and no valid
`release:skip` is selected, the decision is missing: there is no
implicit patch fallback. Prerelease mode can use an explicit or
configured bump, but the mode alone is not a level. Invalid defaults and
conflicting owned labels fail rather than selecting a convenient
fallback.

The declared default is not evidence of compatibility: authors still
assess the audience impact and override the default when needed.
Release-label names, SemVer arithmetic, and pre-1.0 mapping remain
unchanged. The optional ad hoc dispatch keeps its existing explicit-bump
requirement.

## Changed: Missing decisions block merge, not only publication

The release contract requires a named PR decision-validation check,
enforced by the target branch's ruleset or protection. Missing, invalid,
or conflicting decisions fail it before merge. The check re-evaluates
source, release-label, and settings changes; a failed, pending, or
absent required result prevents manual and automatic merge. A valid skip
passes with a no-release outcome instead of skipping validation.
Publication validates its actual inputs again.

This PR documents that contract; it does not implement producer CI
workflows or change repository rulesets.

## Changed: Consumer adoption and publication evidence are complete

PR descriptions include Adopting this release and Release impact
sections, an applicability-aware consumer change record, and a verified
immutable template baseline where applicable. Public interfaces belong
in user-facing prose, and breaking behavior remains explicit
independently of version classification.

The release-management contract preserves the release-bound title and
complete description. Actual coordinates and provenance remain separate
from authored prose, and version-computation and consumer-change
baselines remain distinct. Bundled, optional ad hoc, and source-specific
prerelease records retain equivalent evidence. Metadata corrections
preserve an audit without changing artifacts or historical behavior.
Release filters reflect product contracts, not directory names alone.

## Adopting this release

1. Initiative owners declare their audience and supported jobs.
Repository maintainers state the audience, jobs, and interfaces in the
README, or explicitly adopt the initiative definition and record any
specialization. Detailed users and jobs stay in the linked capability
specification.
2. For each PR release decision, select an owned level or intentionally
configure `DefaultBump` in the release settings. An explicit level wins;
neither source is an error, not a patch default. Select `release:skip`
for a no-release decision. Verify the resolved level against the
audience impact.
3. Use the PR Format structure: ordered adoption or an explicit
no-action outcome, effective release impact and its source without
predicting a final version, and each changed surface's before/after
behavior, applicability, exact action, and verification. Include a
verified immutable template baseline where applicable, or explain why
none applies.
4. Producer CI maintainers run the same decision resolver during PR
validation, make its named check required in branch protection/rulesets,
and cover relevant source and metadata changes. Missing, invalid,
conflicting, pending, and absent results must not permit merge; a valid
skip must produce an explicit successful result.
5. Publisher maintainers preserve the complete source-bound record,
resolve actual publication coordinates, audit metadata corrections, and
keep consumer-facing interfaces in release filters. Implementation and
governance changes remain separately scoped in their owning
repositories.

## Release impact

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Effective decision | `release:skip`, documentation only. |
| Semantic effect | No versioned artifact release. The documented PR
decision contract permits an opt-in default and requires a
merge-blocking CI gate; it does not install that gate in producers. |
| Release/base coordinates | No version is produced by this PR. |

---
<details>
<summary>Technical details</summary>

### Consumer change record

| Identifier / surface | Before | After | Applicability / prerequisites
| Consumer action | Verification |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| AUDIENCE-CONTEXT / initiative docs and READMEs | Audience context is
not required as an input to classification. | Explicit audience, jobs,
and interfaces anchor classification; user/integrator roles may overlap.
| Initiative owners, maintainers, and PR authors. | Adoption steps 1-2.
| Readers identify supported uses without inferring them from ownership
or filenames. |
| RELEASE-DECISION / release settings and PR CI | The spec forbids
defaults while PR evidence permits configured policy; missing decisions
lack an explicit required pre-merge check contract. | An explicit bump
overrides optional `DefaultBump`; neither source fails. Required CI
validates the decision and blocks merge on missing/invalid/conflicting
input. | Producers implementing Release Management and consuming
frameworks. | Adoption steps 2 and 4. |
Explicit/default/override/skip/mode/error cases agree; the decision
check is required, not merely advisory. |
| PR-EVIDENCE / release-bound PR bodies | Adoption may be scattered and
path/size heuristics can obscure impact. | Ordered adoption, resolved
release impact, consumer/template evidence, and highest-impact
classification are required. | Authors following MSX PR Format. |
Adoption steps 2-3. | Every changed surface records applicability,
action, and result; no-action and breaking cases stay explicit. |
| NOTE-PUBLICATION / publication contract | Complete-body,
source-snapshot, correction, and product-aware filter obligations are
not explicit. | Full authored records retain actual coordinates and
source identity; corrections preserve artifacts; filters include shipped
interfaces. | Publisher maintainers. | Adoption step 5. | Published
content matches its source-bound snapshot, and metadata corrections
leave artifact/source identities intact. |

### Template baseline

Not applicable: this PR changes shared standards, not a versioned
framework integration or its template. The PR-format skill remains an
unchanged thin pointer; no plugin metadata or version change is needed.

### Maintainer evidence

- Delivery: #202, refined to a native Task and updated with
the user's audience, opt-in default, and pre-merge CI requirements. The
initial contract is in `6c07314` / `354dd8c`, audience clarification in
`b1a8262` / `e55c80b`, and decision/gate correction in `fd32b41`.
- Copilot review `5124988102` identified the default-policy
contradiction in its suppressed summary. The earlier zero-inline-comment
verdict missed that concern. Review now includes the complete summary,
including suppressed comments; zero inline comments alone is not a clean
round.
- The shared resolver is defined in Release Management. PR Format,
Automation Labels, readiness/Implement wording,
promotion/continuous-delivery guidance, Natural Language error examples,
and the VS Code framework agree with it. Generated release navigation is
current.
- `DefaultBump` reuses the setting name from #196, but the
user explicitly rejected that PR's implicit patch fallback. Coordination
is recorded there. Its branch, release-type redesign, and label rename
remain untouched and need reconciliation before merge.
- The existing index, relative-link, and targeted Markdown checks pass.
CI uses the existing cross-repository-link and Pester jobs; no
validation toolchain or publisher implementation was added.
- Convergence: release/adoption/PR-format and audience issues were
inspected. #67 still needs repository-standard files,
#143 still needs downstream-artifact mapping/enforcement, and
#203 owns the common consumer procedure. No additional issue
is fully satisfied.
- **Repository gate:** #166 remains a native prerequisite of
#202 and tracks missing required CI enforcement. The user
marked this PR ready; this session preserves that state and leaves
auto-merge disabled rather than changing governance or bypassing the
prerequisite.
- Delivery B remains prepared as #203, with a native
dependency on #202. The PSModule pilot, fleet README rollout,
and historical backfill remain outside this delivery.

| Changed surface | Standards checked | Framework docs checked | Result
|
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| PR Format and related workflow/gate guidance | Natural Language,
Markdown, Documentation Model, standard template, issue/PR conventions |
Release Management; Merge Automation; audience contract | Aligned |
| Release Management spec/design/index | Natural Language, Markdown,
Documentation Model, spec/design templates | PR Format; Merge Automation
| Aligned |
| VS Code framework spec/design | Natural Language, Markdown,
Documentation Model, spec/design templates | Shared Release Management
contract | Aligned |
| README/organization/repository standards and audience examples |
Natural Language, Markdown, README-Driven Context | MSX documentation
purpose; PSModule initiative boundary | Aligned |
| Natural Language error examples | Natural Language, Markdown |
Release-decision validation contract | Aligned |

The walkthroughs below assess the documentation contract, not a running
producer or the PSModule pilot:

| Case group | Reconciled outcome |
| --- | --- |
| No-action patch; pre-1.0 break | No-action is explicit; Minor mapping
does not hide breaking behavior or required actions. |
| Skipped releases; prerelease; non-latest target | Each applicable
delta and source/template identity remains recoverable; latest metadata
does not replace historical evidence. |
| Shared user/integrator roles; path/size; mixed changes; missing
audience | Supported audience impact controls classification; absent
audience context is resolved rather than guessed. |
| Explicit level; configured default; override | A valid explicit label
wins; a configured default supplies a missing bump and is recorded as
the source. |
| Missing/invalid/conflicting decisions | The required PR check fails
and merge is blocked. No built-in patch or conflict fallback is
permitted. |
| Skip; prerelease; unowned labels | Valid skip passes without a bump; a
mode needs a resolved bump; unowned labels never supply a decision. |
| Changed labels/settings/source | Validation re-evaluates the candidate
inputs; publication revalidates its actual inputs too. |

</details>

<details>
<summary>Relevant issues (or links)</summary>

- Resolves #202

### Related work

- Depends on #166
- Followed by #203
- References #196
- References #143
- References #67
- References PSModule/Process-PSModule#537

</details>
@MariusStorhaug Marius Storhaug (MariusStorhaug) changed the title 📖 [Docs]: Pull requests now control user-ready release notes Release authors can write self-contained upgrade notes Oct 25, 2026

This branch has not been deployed

No deployments
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant