scriptorium/docs/policy/release.md

# Release Policy

**Base Policy Version:** 1.2

**Last Updated:** 2026-09-26

## 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.

## 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 authoritative publication remote is
`origin`.

A successful push of the intended tag, with its source commit available on the
authoritative primary branch, completes the release. Publish `main` before
invoking the publication command; the command requires
that the remote branch exactly identifies the validated candidate and pushes
only the selected annotated tag.

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.

Scriptorium publishes Linux binaries and checksums asynchronously from the
tagged source. The procedure must identify those deliverables and the
responsibility of their automation. Published deliverables must be traceable
to that source and identify the same version.

Artifact delivery is a separate status. A successful tag push is not evidence
that artifacts are available. Delivery failures do not reverse source-release
success, and optional investigation must not delay release completion.

## Versioning And Compatibility

Stable releases use Semantic Versioning in the form `vMAJOR.MINOR.PATCH`, with
no leading zeroes. Prereleases are not part of the adopted release channel.

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.

## 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. Keep the note proportionate to the change. Fixed sections and
explicit no-action boilerplate are not required. Existing historical notes
need not be rewritten to adopt this format.

Include the release footer defined by the [OSS policy](oss.md#discoverability)
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.

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. A release note must not substitute for current documentation.
Use annotated tags with their message derived from the checked-in note rather
than requiring a separately authored account of the same release.

Version selection, release-note content, and retirement of completed roadmaps
are preparation responsibilities, not separate human approval gates. Preserve
planned and deferred work and repair affected links when retiring roadmaps.
Ordinary change review covers unintended files, credentials, and private data;
do not repeat it as a release-specific sign-off. Ignored local files are not
prohibited merely because they exist: they are not included in 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](testing.md), and verify the required
build targets. Select those targets for the application's actual support
commitments; native testing on each platform and access to particular hardware
are not default release prerequisites.

The selected test invocation includes the race detector because the HTTP
service shares engines and backend capacity state across concurrent requests.
This single invocation covers both ordinary assertions and race detection.
Build both declared Linux architectures with the hosted release flags to catch
cross-compilation and packaging failures; native test hardware for each target
is not required. Existing architecture tests enforce dependency boundaries.

Retain narrow source guards against committed workspaces, vendor trees, and
module replacements: these can otherwise make a passing local build depend on
unpublished or substituted framework code. Disable workspace discovery and
vendor mode during validation. These guards preserve the established
cross-project boundary; they do not require exact dependency-version audits or
module-metadata rewrites at release time.

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, provider probes, or inference calls. The procedure describes
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;
- the remote primary branch already identifies that exact candidate; and
- the tag identifies the validated candidate and only the intended refs are
  published.

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,
inspect the authoritative remote 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

Maintain `docs/release.md` 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.