docs(m1): finalize release closeout - #18
Conversation
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: ab9da017af
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| @@ -1,5 +1,21 @@ | |||
| # Changelog | |||
|
|
|||
| ## [0.0.2] - 2026-08-26 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When this release is tagged or published as instructed by the updated release gate, the distribution will still be built as runguard==0.1.0: both pyproject.toml and the root package entry in uv.lock retain version 0.1.0. This makes the advertised v0.0.2 release inconsistent with its installable artifact and can consume the future v0.1.0 package version prematurely, so update and lock the package version as part of this release closeout.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
Problem
What situation existed before this change? Why did it need to change?
Change
What did you actually do? Summarize the change, not the diff line-by-line.
Design Decisions
Any non-obvious choices made while implementing this — trade-offs, rejected
alternatives, or anything a future reader would ask "why did you do it this
way?" about.
Validation
pytestpassesruff check .passesmypy srcpassesRisks
What could this break? What wasn't tested? What assumptions might not hold
for other inputs or backends?
Related