Cutting A Release

Cutting a Release

Single source of truth for cutting a release. Three concerns move together: the branch/PR workflow, the version bump, and the two release documents (RELEASE_NOTES.md + CHANGELOG.md). Do the steps in order, all on one release/x.y.z branch cut from develop.

Detailed format templates live in reference files — load them when you reach §6:

• Release-notes structure, section order, and spotlight template → references/release-notes-format.md
• Changelog structure and per-release entry skeleton → references/changelog-format.md

0. Shape of a release

develop (PR-only)                     main (PR-only, squash)
   │  1. pull latest develop           │
   │  2. cut release/x.y.z ────────────┐
   │       bump VERSION + sync         │
   │       write CHANGELOG + NOTES     │
   │       commit + push               │
   │            3. PR release/x.y.z ──▶ main   (squash-merge after review)
   │  4. backmerge ◀────────────────────┤  (branch off develop, merge main in,
   │       (PR to develop, MERGE COMMIT)│   PR into develop, MERGE COMMIT)
   ▼                                    ▼

Two hard rules of this repo's branch model:

1. Never commit directly to develop or main. Both are PR-only — the release bump and the backmerge each land through a branch + PR.
2. After the squash-merge into main, you MUST backmerge main → develop (§7). Skipping it leaves the branches divergent and every future release conflicts on the release-artifact files.

1. Pre-merge prerequisite — the DynamoDB GSI limit

Ask before opening the release PR: does any table that ALREADY EXISTS in production gain more than one Global Secondary Index in this release?

If yes, the release must be split into two deploys — ship one index, wait for it to report ACTIVE, then ship the next. That split has to happen before the merge, not after a rollback.

Why one is the limit

DynamoDB's UpdateTable API permits exactly one GSI creation or deletion per call. CloudFormation issues one UpdateTable per changed table, so a template that adds two indexes to an existing table fails with:

Cannot perform more than one GSI creation or deletion in a single update

The limit applies to UpdateTable only. CreateTable accepts any number of indexes, so a brand-new table with five GSIs is fine — which is exactly why the question is "does an existing table gain more than one?" and not "are there new indexes?".

The blast radius is the whole stack, not the table: when the update fails, CloudFormation rolls back every other resource in the deploy with it. Meanwhile backend.yml and frontend-deploy.yml are separate workflows that succeed on their own, so the release ends up running new application code against old infrastructure.

Why an incremental environment cannot reveal this

dev deploys on every merge into develop. Two indexes that arrive in two separate PRs therefore get two separate platform deploys, one index each — both succeed, and dev looks completely healthy.

main only ever sees the aggregate. A release collapses a whole batch of merges into a single CloudFormation update, so the two indexes that dev applied one at a time arrive at prod in the same UpdateTable call. Only an environment that jumps a whole release at once is exposed, which means no amount of dev soak time will surface it and passing CI proves nothing here. Reviewing the release diff is the only place it can be caught.

This is what took production down on 2026-08-01. Release 1.12.0 (#814) added AgentDirectoryIndex and AgentReportsIndex to the existing {prefix}-rag-assistants table in one update. They had reached develop in separate merges (02d0f2e9, a128831d) and dev had deployed each one cleanly. The prod update failed, rolled back the rest of the deploy including a brand-new audit-log table, and left the agent store returning 500 against already-deployed new code. Recovery took two more patch releases. The 1.12.0 release notes did flag GSI backfill timing — but not the per-update limit.

How to check

CI enforces this on every PR into main (.github/workflows/gsi-update-limit.yml). To check locally before you open the PR:

node scripts/release/check-gsi-update-limit.mjs

It diffs infrastructure/gsi-inventory.json — a committed, synth-generated inventory of every DynamoDB table and its indexes — between origin/main and your branch, and fails when a table present in both needs more than one index operation. Tables that appear only on your branch are exempt (CreateTable), as are tables dropped entirely (DeleteTable).

Note it counts creations and deletions together, because the API limit is one GSI operation per update: renaming an index — one add plus one drop — fails exactly like adding two does.

The inventory is regenerated and verified by the infrastructure test suite, so a GSI added in code without the inventory updated fails npx jest first:

cd infrastructure && UPDATE_GSI_INVENTORY=1 npx jest gsi-update-limit

The check reports SKIPPED when main has no inventory to diff against — true only until the first release carrying gsi-inventory.json lands. For that one release, answer the question by reading the diff yourself.

The automation does not replace the question. It compares committed inventories, so it only sees what git sees. Read the gsi-inventory.json diff in the release PR: one added line under an existing table is fine, two is a split.

If the answer is yes — split the release

Ship the indexes in separate releases, each merged and deployed on its own:

1. Release N carries one of the new indexes. Merge, deploy, and confirm the index reports ACTIVE before continuing — CloudFormation reporting UPDATE_COMPLETE is not the same as the index being usable:

   aws dynamodb describe-table --table-name <prefix>-rag-assistants \
     --query 'Table.GlobalSecondaryIndexes[].{Name:IndexName,Status:IndexStatus}'
   

2. Release N+1 adds the second index, once the first is ACTIVE.

Prefer doing this on the release branch before the merge: drop the second index from the release branch, ship it, then restore it in the next release.

Recovery, if it has already failed

Each half needs its own patch release — there is no way to ship them as one PR and no way to skip the version bump. .github/workflows/version-check.yml fails any PR into main whose VERSION is unchanged, and it has no label, flag, or skip path. So a failed two-index deploy costs two patch releases (1.12.0 → 1.12.1 added the first index alone, 1.12.2 restored the second).

Do NOT stack PR 2 on PR 1. After PR 1 squash-merges into main, the merge-base for a branch cut from PR 1 does not move. PR 1's removal and PR 2's restoration then cancel out in the three-dot diff GitHub shows and merges — the PR looks correct, CI passes, and the restore silently no-ops. The index never comes back.

Open PR 2 only after PR 1 has merged, branched fresh from main, as a git revert of PR 1's squash commit:

git fetch origin main
git switch -c release/x.y.z origin/main
git revert --no-commit <pr-1-squash-sha>   # restores the second index

2. Branch workflow

git switch develop
git pull --ff-only origin develop     # release must contain all of develop
git switch -c release/x.y.z           # branch name == version being shipped (no v prefix)

The branch name corresponds to the version being pushed (release/1.2.0 ships 1.2.0) and carries all commits currently on develop.

Then, on the release branch: create a task list, determine the bump (§4), bump VERSION + sync (§3), write both docs (§5–§6). Keep every edit on the release branch — develop stays untouched. Commit and push:

git add VERSION backend/pyproject.toml backend/uv.lock \
        frontend/ai.client/package.json frontend/ai.client/package-lock.json \
        infrastructure/package.json infrastructure/package-lock.json \
        CHANGELOG.md RELEASE_NOTES.md README.md
git commit -m "Release/x.y.z" -m "<one-paragraph summary + bullet notes>"
git push -u origin release/x.y.z

Open a PR release/x.y.z → main. After prerequisites (§1) + code review pass, it is squash-merged into main (the version-check gate passes because VERSION changed). Then do the backmerge (§7).

3. Version bump

Single VERSION file at the repo root is the source of truth. Format: MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH[-PRERELEASE] (SemVer 2.0), no v prefix.

1. Edit VERSION.
2. bash scripts/common/sync-version.sh
3. bash scripts/common/sync-version.sh --check → must print [PASS].
4. Commit VERSION and every file the sync touched, including lockfiles.

The sync script propagates the version into backend/pyproject.toml, frontend/ai.client/package.json, infrastructure/package.json, the README.md badge + "Current release" line, and regenerates backend/uv.lock and both package-lock.json. Run it inside the dev container (needs uv + npm at pinned versions).

• PR gate: PRs to main fail CI if VERSION is unchanged vs main or the manifests are out of sync.
• CI handles the rest: Docker image tags, AWS resource tags, health-endpoint versions, frontend version display, and the vX.Y.Z git tag. Just bump + sync.

4. Decide the bump — SemVer + release sizing

Pick the tier from what shipped, then size the write-up to match.

Rules of thumb: don't pad a patch; don't starve a feature; size to the largest single change; turning a dark feature on by default or completing a preview capability counts as user-facing → minor.

5. Identify what changed (the divergent-history trap)

develop is squash-merged → main, so main and develop have divergent histories; a squash collapses a whole release into one commit on main whose SHA matches nothing on develop.

Do NOT use git log main..develop. Even after a backmerge makes main an ancestor of develop, main's squashed history means develop's granular commits are never reachable from main — so main..develop returns the entire project history, not the release delta.

Use the previous release's cut point (or tag) as the boundary:

git tag --list 'v*' --sort=-creatordate | head
git log <prev-release-cut-or-tag>..develop --no-merges --reverse --format='%h %s'
git log <prev-release-cut-or-tag>..develop --merges --format='%s'   # PR numbers

Exclude commits a prior backmerge dragged in (the previous Release/x.y.z squash commit, direct-to-main hotfixes) — they aren't new work. For every non-trivial commit read the diff, not the message (git show --stat <sha>). Bucket each change:

Include user/operator-facing changes, bug fixes people hit, security updates, breaking changes, dependency upgrades. Changelog-only: minor dep bumps with no behavior change, internal test additions. Exclude from both: pure internal refactors, typo/comment/formatter churn.

6. Write the two documents

Same pass, same categorized list. Write CHANGELOG.md first (factual log), then RELEASE_NOTES.md (narrative). Cross-check every changelog line maps to something in the notes (except the changelog-only items above).

• CHANGELOG.md — Keep a Changelog, terse, one line per change, PR-linked (#NNN) when known, grouped by category emoji. New version at top; omit empty categories; never invent PR numbers. Full skeleton → references/changelog-format.md.
• RELEASE_NOTES.md — narrative, benefit-first with technical depth. New release at top; never modify previous entries. Lead each item with the user/operator outcome, then the mechanism (files, endpoints, classes). Section order + spotlight template → references/release-notes-format.md.

Translate technical → benefit. "Implemented tool-catalog caching" → "Tool admin changes now propagate to chat on the next turn (was: required a restart). Backed by a TTL-cached DynamoDB snapshot."

Link hygiene: GitHub renders {#custom-anchor} heading suffixes literally — don't use them; prefer plain text over fragile intra-doc anchors.

Before finalizing: sync-version.sh --check passes, and both docs lead with the new version above the untouched previous entries.

7. Backmerge main → develop (required)

After the release PR squash-merges into main, reconcile the branches — PR-based, you cannot push directly to develop.

git fetch origin main develop
git switch develop && git merge --ff-only origin/develop
git switch -c backmerge/main-into-develop-x.y.z
git merge --no-commit --no-ff origin/main               # preview conflicts

If there are conflicts they're only the release-artifact files (VERSION, CHANGELOG.md, RELEASE_NOTES.md, README.md, manifests, lockfiles) — resolve in main's favor (main holds the canonical post-release state; develop's copy is pre-release plus any stale [Unreleased]-style content that has now shipped):

git checkout --theirs -- VERSION CHANGELOG.md RELEASE_NOTES.md README.md \
  backend/pyproject.toml backend/uv.lock \
  frontend/ai.client/package.json frontend/ai.client/package-lock.json \
  infrastructure/package.json infrastructure/package-lock.json
git add -A
bash scripts/common/sync-version.sh --check     # must PASS
git commit --no-edit

Verify git merge-base --is-ancestor origin/main HEAD succeeds, push, and open a PR into develop.

Merge the backmerge PR with a MERGE COMMIT, not a squash — the point is to make main a genuine ancestor of develop. Squashing recreates the divergence and the conflicts return next release. (Feature branches into develop squash as usual; the backmerge is the deliberate exception.)

A clean auto-merge happens when develop never touched the release artifacts since the last reconciliation and main only added on top. Verify the result anyway (VERSION + both docs correct, feature code intact) before committing.

8. Common pitfalls

• Adding two GSIs to an existing table in one release — UpdateTable allows one per call, and dev's per-merge deploys never show it (§1). Split the release.
• Stacking the second GSI PR on the first — the three-dot diff cancels the two commits and the restore silently no-ops (§1). Revert off main instead.
• git log main..develop returns all history, not the delta (§5) — use the prior release cut point.
• Trusting commit messages — read the diff for non-trivial commits.
• Forgetting lockfiles — sync-version.sh regenerates uv.lock + both package-lock.json; commit them or CI drifts.
• Squashing the backmerge — recreates divergence; use a merge commit.
• Committing straight to develop/main — both are PR-only.
• Padding a patch / starving a feature — size the notes to the release (§4).
• Inventing PR numbers or fragile {#anchor} links — omit / use plain text.
• Skipping the backmerge — the #1 cause of next-release conflict pain.