Record the stale-ref refusal in the changelog - #186
Merged
Conversation
#183 changes what a deployment does: a click citing a ref this server holds a snapshot for and cannot resolve is refused where it used to be carried out with the boundary blind to the element. It landed without a line here. That is the one shape of omission this file exists to prevent — an operator upgrading meets refusals nothing warned them about, and the security fix underneath them is invisible.
davidmckayv
requested review from
MikeRyanDev,
guidovizoso and
tylerslaton
as code owners
August 22, 2026 21:29
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
#183 landed without a changelog line, and it is the one of the four that most needed one: it changes what a deployment does. A click citing a ref this server holds a snapshot for and cannot resolve is now refused, where it used to be carried out with the boundary unable to see the element.
An operator upgrading past it will see refusals they did not see before. That is correct — those are the actions that were going through without the rule seeing what they touched — but meeting it with no warning reads as a regression, and the security fix underneath is invisible.
The entry says what changed, why the refusal is the fix rather than the fault, what is deliberately left untouched (actions naming no element, and a computer this deployment holds no snapshot for), and what a Bot does when it meets one.
#184 correctly has no entry: same tools, same order, same refusals. By this file's own rule a line belongs here when a deployment behaves differently afterwards, and that one does not.