ReleaseKit/docs/policy/release.md

Release Policy

Base Policy Version: 1.4

Last Updated: 2026-10-08

Upstream Source: release.md

Purpose

This policy defines a proportionate workflow for validating and publishing an intended source revision under a fresh version. Releases should require little routine intervention, avoid repeated work, and preserve published contents.

The repository-specific commands belong in docs/release.md. Historical release summaries belong in docs/releases/. The procedure must agree with the adopted policy and link to it rather than introduce additional release requirements.

This policy governs releases of ReleaseKit itself. Go declarations and GoDoc own supported consumer API contracts. The maintainer runbook describes ReleaseKit's implemented source publication and hosted-page delivery procedure.

Release Model And Completion

A source release identifies one exact committed source revision through an immutable version tag and a version-matched, checked-in release note. The primary release branch is main. The procedure must name the authoritative publication remote.

A successful push of the intended annotated tag, with its source commit already published on authoritative main, completes the release. The remote branch must identify the validated candidate before the command publishes only the exact intended tag object. The maintainer runbook identifies the authoritative endpoint and command.

Release commands must finish at successful publication. They must not wait for or poll CI, require successful CI status, inspect downloadable artifacts, or check consumer installation or Go module availability as completion gates. A failed or ambiguous push requires resolving the authoritative remote state before declaring success or retrying; successful pushes do not require a separate remote read-back gate.

ReleaseKit's deliverables are its immutable source tag and a hosted Gitea release page whose body is the complete checked-in release note. A prepared Woodpecker workflow builds the local release tool from that tagged source and delivers the note page. This adds no executable download or binary manifest. Any later distribution of executable builds requires a deliberate update identifying the deliverables, selected targets, and automation responsibilities. Supporting cross-builds for consumers does not declare ReleaseKit binaries. Additional declared deliverables may be published asynchronously from the tagged source, must be traceable to that source, and must identify the same version.

Track source-release completion and artifact delivery separately. Report delivery failures and optional investigations under artifact-delivery status.

Versioning And Compatibility

Stable releases use Semantic Versioning in the form vMAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, with no leading zeroes. Prereleases require an explicit adopted policy defining their format and use.

The selected version must be unused locally and on the authoritative remote. Do not require queries to every configured remote or publication service. A version known to have already been published must not be reused, even if the normal guards do not inspect that channel. Adding a distribution channel requires a deliberate update to the policy and procedure where needed.

For releases at or after v1.0.0:

• a major release may make intentional incompatible changes;
• a minor release may add backward-compatible behavior; and
• a patch release may make backward-compatible fixes.

Before v1.0.0, a minor release may change a documented public, operational, configuration, data, integration, or compatibility contract when the release note explains the impact and required consumer action. A patch release must not intentionally break those contracts within its minor line.

Additional compatibility promises and deliberate exceptions belong in the adopted policy or canonical contract documentation. Release notes explain changes; they do not redefine current compatibility contracts.

Go Minimum And Release Toolchain

ReleaseKit provides reasonable support for routine build and release needs, following ADR 0002. Its Go support policy relies on upstream compatibility commitments and verification proportionate to those needs.

Select the Go series during release preparation. When advancing the consumer minimum, use the latest locally available stable series and record its initial stable version in go.mod, such as go 1.26.0. Use a higher patch minimum when a dependency requirement or identified correctness fix requires it. Minimum increases follow the versioning and compatibility rules above and are explained in the release note.

Build the maintainer release executable and validate the candidate with the same latest locally available patch of the selected series. Keep that toolchain active throughout preparation, tool bootstrap, and validation, using local toolchain selection. Maintained CI images follow the chosen build toolchain. The patch used for these operations is separate from the consumer minimum.

Successful build and release validation on that patch serve as sufficient evidence of support from the series' initial stable release through subsequent patch releases, subject to known dependency requirements or correctness issues. This relies on Go's release policy and compatibility commitments. Additional patch-specific validation is warranted by concrete evidence; routine releases require no patch-version matrix. Record the actual validation toolchain in the release evidence.

Release Documentation And Preparation

Every new release must include docs/releases/<version>.md in the tagged source tree. Use the complete version tag as the filename and begin with a title containing the product name and that exact version.

Include a short summary and any relevant compatibility impact or upgrade instructions. Choose sections suited to the release and keep the note proportionate to the change.

Keep exact current contracts in their canonical documents and update affected documentation with the behavior change. Link to those documents from the note where useful. Derive the annotated tag's message from the checked-in note.

Include the release footer defined by the OSS policy in each new release document and preserve it on the hosted download page. The release procedure defines the concrete URLs and publication mechanics. Prepare these links with the release note; they do not add a network check or approval gate.

Handle version selection, release-note content, and retirement of completed roadmaps during preparation. Preserve planned and deferred work and repair affected links when retiring roadmaps. Reuse ordinary change review for unintended files, credentials, and private data. Scope release-content review to the tagged source.

Candidate Validation

Provide one publication command that validates the final committed candidate, checks publication state, and publishes the intended refs. A validation-only mode or command may be provided for diagnosis, but must not be a required step before publication repeats the same checks.

Run the complete deterministic, offline default test suite once for the final candidate, following the testing policy. For repositories that publish builds, verify the required build targets. Select those targets for the project's actual support commitments; native testing on each platform and access to particular hardware are not default release prerequisites.

The publication command runs the standard offline Go test suite, followed by any additional product checks. The maintainer runbook owns its invocation. ReleaseKit's source-only deliverable adds no binary target matrix.

Additional gates must address a concrete risk that the existing checks do not adequately cover. Do not automatically require linting, race testing, module hygiene audits, documentation audits, credential scans, example validation, or expanded platform matrices solely because they are possible. Retain such checks when their distinct protection justifies their cost. A one-time migration check must not silently become a permanent release requirement.

Release tests must not require real credentials, mutable application services, paid APIs, or live service probes. The procedure may describe dependency preparation separately from offline validation.

Avoid duplicate validation across release phases. Successful checks for the same final candidate need not be repeated solely to satisfy another phase; any reuse must clearly apply to that exact candidate. Persistent validation caches are not required. If the candidate changes, validate the new candidate. Cheap publication-state checks may be repeated immediately before pushing because local or remote state may have changed during validation.

Automate mechanical guards. Human review gates are strongly disfavored: add one only through an explicit project-specific policy decision explaining the concrete risk and why ordinary change review or automation is insufficient. Do not add routine confirmations for checks the command can perform itself.

Publication Guards

Automate the checks needed to publish the intended source under a fresh version:

• the version has the adopted format and is unused locally and on the authoritative remote;
• the worktree and index are clean on the primary release branch;
• the source being published is the exact candidate that passed validation, including its matching release note;
• authoritative main already identifies that candidate; and
• the annotated tag identifies the validated candidate and only its exact object is published through an explicit tag ref.

Fetch the authoritative branch and tag state as needed for these checks. Do not force branch or tag updates to bypass a failed guard. Publish explicit refs rather than all local tags. Do not require CI success, publication-service availability checks, or a separate manual confirmation for each guard.

Immutability And Failure Recovery

Published version tags and published contents are immutable. Do not move, overwrite, recreate, or delete a published tag, or replace a published artifact, checksum, signature, provenance statement, or release note under that version. The checked-in note at the immutable tag is that release's historical record.

If validation fails before publication, correct and commit the candidate and rerun the publication command. If a push fails or its outcome is ambiguous, query the authoritative tag ref once. Confirm success only when it identifies the exact intended tag object on the validated commit; otherwise report failed or unknown status and retain the local tag. Resolve that authoritative state before retrying. Remove an unpublished local tag only after confirming it was never published or used by a release channel. An unavailable remote leaves publication status unknown; do not overwrite a tag to resolve uncertainty.

Transient network, authentication, CI, or consumer-availability failures do not by themselves require a new version. Asynchronous delivery may be retried from the same immutable tag. Missing artifacts may be published later, provided existing published contents are not replaced and the additions remain consistent with the tagged source and any already-published checksum manifest. If that cannot be achieved, publish a new version.

A defect requiring changes to published source or contents requires a corrected commit, a new semantically appropriate version, a matching release note, and the release procedure again. Leave the original release intact. A channel's yank, deprecation, or advisory mechanism may warn consumers away from a defective release without replacing its contents or reusing its version.

Repository Release Procedure

Create and maintain docs/release.md with the first working publication command as a short, executable maintainer runbook. It must identify:

1. prerequisites, primary branch, and authoritative remote;
2. version and release-note preparation;
3. one publication command with its selected local checks and automated guards;
4. declared deliverables, required build targets, and automation responsibilities;
5. the successful-push completion point and separately reported delivery status; and
6. failure handling, ambiguous-push recovery, and asynchronous delivery retries.

Use copyable commands where practical. Keep optional diagnostics and consumer verification clearly optional. The procedure must not turn preparation work, ordinary change review, or post-publication investigation into additional release gates.