Skip to content

docs(changelog): backfill 0.4.0, 0.5.0, and 0.5.1 - #184

Open
abhinav-phi wants to merge 2 commits into
mex-memory:mainfrom
abhinav-phi:docs/changelog-backfill
Open

docs(changelog): backfill 0.4.0, 0.5.0, and 0.5.1#184
abhinav-phi wants to merge 2 commits into
mex-memory:mainfrom
abhinav-phi:docs/changelog-backfill

Conversation

@abhinav-phi

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Resolves #50.

What

Three new changelog sections, inserted chronologically between the existing 0.6.1 and 0.3.5 entries, in the established Keep-a-Changelog style:

Method (and the issue's maintainer-input note)

The issue asked contributors to write and the maintainer to supply facts. I drafted strictly from the commits inside each release tag range (612a4d0..v0.4.0, v0.4.0..v0.5.0, v0.5.0..v0.5.1), reading the referenced PRs (#44, #45, #48, #47) for accurate descriptions. Two judgment calls worth review:

  1. The npm rename commits sit inside the 0.4.0 tag range, but the existing 0.3.5 section already summarizes the rename — I referenced it instead of double-claiming.
  2. Features dated April 2026 (visualizer, --verbose, Nix flake, tool-agnostic sync) predate the v0.3 release commit and appear to ship within the 0.3.x line, so they are not attributed to 0.4.0. If any of them actually first shipped in 0.4.0, say the word and I'll move them.

Compatibility-relevant items are called out explicitly, which is what COMPATIBILITY.md requires of this file.

COMPATIBILITY.md names the changelog as the surfacing mechanism for
breaking changes, but entries stopped at 0.3.5. Sections are drafted
strictly from the commits inside each release tag range
(612a4d0..v0.4.0, v0.4.0..v0.5.0, v0.5.0..v0.5.1): the public API
surface (mex-memory#44), the compatibility contract and trace field (mex-memory#45), and
the package.json-derived --version fix (mex-memory#48).

Where a fact was ambiguous (the npm rename's commit sits in the 0.4.0
range but the 0.3.5 notes already summarize it), the entry references
the existing section rather than double-claiming. Maintainer review
against the actual release notes is welcome — that is what the issue
asked for.

Resolves mex-memory#50
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.

Backfill CHANGELOG for 0.4 and 0.5

1 participant