docs: stop the changelog claiming 112 releases that never happened - #369
Open
fstubner wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
docs: stop the changelog claiming 112 releases that never happened#369fstubner wants to merge 1 commit into
fstubner wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
…nd keep design drafts out of search CHANGELOG.md listed 112 "release xtctx X.Y.Z" entries running up to 0.74.0 under the 0.20.0 heading. No tag exists above 0.21.8 and npm has never published past 0.19.0, so a reader scanning the file for what shipped was being shown versions that do not exist. They are real commits — an automated pipeline cut them in a few hours on 2026-08-29 before the version was reset to 0.20.0 and the pipeline replaced by a manually-triggered release. So this summarises what happened in one entry rather than deleting the history: the churn is worth recording, the 112 individual bullets are not. Separately, `landing/src/pages/v9.astro` is a design draft that builds to a public URL and carried no `noindex`, so a near-duplicate of the landing page was indexable alongside the real one — and its hand-copied FAQ has already drifted from the live copy, describing four MCP tools where the real page lists five. The `concepts/` drafts already carried the tag; v9 did not, and nothing carried a robots.txt. Verified against a real build: `landing/dist/robots.txt` is emitted, the built v9 page carries the meta tag, and the real landing page does NOT — a noindex on the published page is the failure this could most easily have introduced. The robots.txt deliberately names no sitemap. There is no sitemap.xml in the build, and pointing crawlers at a 404 is its own small false claim.
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
1 participant
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.
Two honesty problems in what the project says about itself publicly.
1. The changelog listed 112 versions that don't exist
CHANGELOG.mdcarried 112release xtctx X.Y.Zentries running up to 0.74.0 under the 0.20.0 heading. No tag exists above 0.21.8; npm has never published past 0.19.0. Anyone scanning the file for what shipped was reading a fabricated history.They are real commits — an automated pipeline cut them in a few hours on 2026-08-29 before the version was reset to 0.20.0 and the pipeline replaced by a manually-triggered release. So this summarises what happened in one entry rather than deleting it. The churn is worth recording; 112 individual bullets are not.
2. A design draft was competing with the real landing page
landing/src/pages/v9.astrobuilds to a public URL and carried nonoindex— a near-duplicate landing page, indexable alongside the real one. Its hand-copied FAQ has already drifted: it describes four MCP tools where the live copy correctly lists five.The
concepts/drafts already carried the tag.v9didn't, and nothing carried arobots.txt.Verification, against a real build
landing/dist/robots.txtemittedv9page carriesnoindexnoindexThat last row is the failure this change could most easily have introduced, so it's asserted explicitly.
The
robots.txtdeliberately names no sitemap: there is nositemap.xmlin the build, and pointing crawlers at a 404 is its own small false claim.Note
The drafts remain publicly reachable by direct URL — this only keeps them out of search. If you'd rather they weren't deployed at all, that's a one-line build exclusion, but I left them since you're actively using them to choose a direction.