chore: release v0.8.10 - #3426
Merged
Merged
Conversation
|
Preview deployment for your docs. Learn more about Mintlify Previews.
💡 Tip: Enable Workflows to automatically generate PRs for you. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Stable release. Merging this PR publishes — the workflow checks out the merge SHA, creates the
v0.8.10tag there, publishes the npm packages, and cuts the GitHub release usingreleases/v0.8.10.mdas its body.I stopped at opening the PR deliberately: the publish is the irreversible step and the process puts it behind a human merge. The local tag was not pushed.
What ships
One commit since
v0.8.9:Studio's render POST caught its error without binding it, so every transport failure — a dead server, a DNS error, an aborted request, a server that died mid-render — surfaced as one sentence. That string also travels into the feedback report, so failures that reproduce every time still arrived with nothing to act on. The cause is now named alongside the existing CLI guidance.
That is the whole release. It is small on purpose: the observability is worth shipping ahead of the other fixes in flight.
One thing to know before merging
The pre-commit
largefileshook refused this commit:I used the hook's own documented escape (
HF_MAX_NONLFS_KB=1024), not--no-verify, so thecheck still ran and still reported. Why that is the right call rather than a bypass:
The file is fine. 514 KB across 5237 lines is 170 release entries at ~3 KB each. No
embedded blob, longest line 717 characters. It is exactly what 170 releases of notes weigh.
The check misclassifies it.
scripts/check-large-files.shexists to catch binariescommitted straight into the pack instead of LFS - that is its comment, its error message and
its name. But it has no binary detection: it exempts symlinks,
registry/*and LFS-trackedpaths, then judges everything else on
wc -calone. A line-diffable markdown source trips abinary guard that never checks for binaries.
Its suggested fix would be wrong here. The error tells you to add an LFS pattern. A
changelog is text that belongs in git history and diffs line-by-line; routing it through LFS
to satisfy a binary rule would be the wrong trade.
So the fix belongs in the check (exempt text, or at least
.md/.mdx), not in thechangelog. Until then every release trips it, because the file only grows. Splitting the
changelog may still be worth doing for docs rendering - 170 entries on one page is a lot -
but that is a separate argument from this hook.
Not in this release