Write Changelog

Write Changelog

Surveys commits since a base point and folds user-facing entries into docs/overview/changelog.md in the historical curated style. The hard part is judgment — which commits matter to users, how tersely to phrase them, and when to fold a refinement into an existing entry rather than add a new bullet.

This tool is designed to replace a laborious manual

git log --stat <base>..upstream/main

not-taking process for identifying changes to consider recording in the changelog.

When to use

• An in-development major release (### Zulip Server X.0 is _Unreleased_) needs its draft refreshed. Typical cadence: every 1–4 weeks between betas.
• A maintenance release on a stable branch (e.g., 11.5 on 11.x) is being prepared. Section shape and rules differ — see "Maintenance release mode" below.

Workflow

1. Identify scope

Resolve the base commit (use the user's argument if given; otherwise default to the last commit on upstream/main that materially touched the changelog):

git log -10 --format=%H upstream/main -- docs/overview/changelog.md

If the base is a stable release tag (e.g., 11.4), this is a maintenance release — switch to "Maintenance release mode" below.

Read the existing in-progress section (### Zulip Server X.0 / X.0-betaN) end-to-end. The skill folds new content into the existing organization rather than reinventing it.

The changelog for a beta is always a draft of the changelog of a final release. So if the existing section is ### Zulip Server X.0-betaN and a new beta is being cut, rename the heading and update the _Released_ date in place, rather than adding new changes.

Check for a parallel maintenance release that may also have shipped in the same window. List tags by date and look for any stable release whose major version differs from the target's:

git for-each-ref --sort=creatordate --format='%(refname:short) %(creatordate:short)' 'refs/tags/*'

Changelogs for maintenance releases always enter the main branch via cherry-picking from the original changelog on the maintenance release branch.

2. Survey commits

Start with the commit list:

git log --stat <base>..upstream/main --format="%H %s"

Then walk these signal sources, in roughly decreasing reliability:

• api_docs/changelog.md deltas. For each new feature-level entry, ask: "Does this need a Full changelog bullet, an Upgrade note, both, or neither?" Keep in mind that sometimes, backend changes for an unfinished feature and merged months before the feature is completed.

  git diff <base>..upstream/main -- api_docs/changelog.md
  

• Help-center source tree. Newly-added articles signal newly documented features. The path varies by era: currently starlight_help/src/content/docs/*.mdx; pre-Starlight (≤9.x) it was help/*.md then templates/zerver/help/*.md. Help-center commits often land days to weeks after the underlying feature, so this can catch features whose original commit predates the base. Bulk migration deltas inside existing files are noise.

  git log --diff-filter=A --name-only <base>..upstream/main \
      -- starlight_help/ help/ templates/zerver/help/
  

• zulip_update_announcements.py. The in-app "what's new" feed is curated here; every new entry is a changelog highlight candidate.

  git diff <base>..upstream/main -- zerver/lib/zulip_update_announcements.py
  

• Added, Removed, or greatly changed integrations.

  git diff --stat <base>..upstream/main zerver/lib/integrations.py zerver/webhooks/*/*.{md,py}
  

• CVEs are not detected mechanically. They're managed manually by the security team and are essentially always backported. By the time a major release ships, the relevant CVEs are already documented in the maintenance changelogs that shipped during the cycle — cross-reference those rather than re-discovering. Ask the security team if anything is unclear.

For ambiguous commit subjects, read the body with git show <sha>. Cluster commits sharing a Fixes #N reference; they often map to one entry. For commits whose user impact is still unclear, consider having a subagent follow links to GitHub issues or chat.zulip.org threads.

3. Filter to user-facing changes

Skip — almost never changelog material:

• Refactors and prep commits ("Extract", "Refactor", "Move", "Inline"); pure typing refactors ("Replace dict[str, Any] with dataclass", "Use literal types").
• Test infrastructure (tests:, test_X:).
• Dev tooling and CI (requirements:, dependencies:, lint:, mypy:, eslint:, ruff:, ci:, provision:, install-*:, Vagrantfile:, pre-commit:).
• Translation / metadata churn (locale/, mailmap).
• docs: commits that fix typos, dead labels, or canonical-URL meta. Include docs: commits that document a behavior change or improve developer-facing tooling (e.g., autogenerated Sphinx labels, new install-flag documentation).
• API capability commits whose api_docs/changelog.md entry preserves the legacy event/endpoint format. Protocol optimizations behind a client capability flag aren't user-facing and need only be documented in the separate API changelog.
• Migrations whose user-visible effect is described by a separate feature commit.
• Reverts of unreleased commits (and remove the original entry from the changelog if it had been added).
• Same-cycle fixups. A bug fix or small extension to a feature added in the same release does not get its own entry — the original feature entry already represents the work.
• Visual polish fixups ("Increase gap", "Vertically align", "Fix spacing", "Restyle border-radius"). Don't emit a per-commit entry; if there are enough such commits, roll them up into one umbrella bullet ("Fixed several visual polish issues across modals, popovers, …").
• Anything internal that doesn't impact the experience of users, organization administrators, or server administrators. A handful of major technical improvements or extended migrations can be highlighted at the end of the section.

Include:

• New user-visible features, redesigns, settings, search operators, keyboard shortcuts, Markdown syntax additions.
• New webhook integrations, or material changes to existing ones (new event types, silent-mention support, output rewrites).
• Performance work users will notice ("2x faster web app load in large organizations").
• Security/hardening: non-CVE hardening (e.g., a dependency upgrade closing a low-severity issue, an XSS-resistance audit) lands as a short Improved/Hardened bullet in the Full feature changelog. CVEs use the dedicated format in "Maintenance release mode".
• Platform support changes (added/removed OS, Postgres, Python major versions).
• API/settings changes that might require a system administrator to update common classes of integrations with their Zulip server.
• Themed-cluster rollups: when many small improvements share an area, group them under one bullet — e.g., "Fixed several visual polish issues across modals, popovers, the saved-snippets dropdown, stream-privacy decoration, recent-view headers, and subscriber-list scrolling." (12.0-beta2) captures 10+ commits no one individually merits. The shape is "Fixed/Improved several X across A, B, C, …".

When in doubt: "can you imagine a user or administrator who would be sad if this commit were silently reverted before release?" If no, skip.

4. Draft Full feature changelog entries

(Skip in maintenance mode — that has its own ordering, see below.)

For each candidate, decide: new entry, fold into an existing entry, or skip. Prefer folding when the new commit refines, extends, or parallels something already covered (see "Folding rules" below).

Group entries by the loose ordering used in existing sections: Added → Redesigned → Improved → Renamed → (clusters in a subsystem) → Integrations → Fixed → Performance/Security/Infrastructure. Slot each new entry near existing entries of the same shape or adjacent topic; don't append to the end of the list.

Important behavior changes that don't cleanly fit any of the above categories can go before the "Added" section as a small lead cluster. The 11.0 section is the canonical example: it opens with bullets like "The compose box now offers to convert large amounts of pasted text into an uploaded file.", "Policies for automatically following topics they initiate are now applied when…", "Notices generated by moving messages are now always marked as read for the acting user.", "Email notifications and Notification Bot now use topic permalinks." Each names a behavior change too narrative-weighted for "Added"/"Improved" but that the reader needs to know up front.

After drafting, scan for umbrella opportunities. When 4+ commits cluster in one subsystem (webhooks/*, compose:, portico:) and were individually skipped or look thin on their own, write a single rollup bullet ("Improved many webhook integrations, including Travis CI…, PagerDuty…, Jira…").

5. Promote Highlights

A new entry belongs in #### Highlights if it's one of:

• A top-level user-visible feature (a new view, compose mode, auth backend, media format, major settings panel).
• A redesign large enough that screenshots would change.
• An infrastructure change with broad self-hoster impact (new OS support, Postgres major version, Docker container rework).
• A protocol or security milestone (e.g., E2EE push notifications becoming generally available).
• Anything else that could reasonably change whether a reader is interested in choosing Zulip over alternative chat systems.

For each candidate:

• Check the existing Highlights first. for whether an existing highlight should be extended.
• Move (don't duplicate) the entry from the full list to #### Highlights. Sub-features that expand on the highlight stay in the full list, unless they flow naturally as a second sentence.
• Expand it slightly: Highlights are 1–3 sentences and can include some context.
• Pattern-match for prominence level. Find the most-similar existing Highlight (across all past releases) and match it.
• A newly-added help-center article (see Step 2's path list) often confirms a feature meets the bar.

When polishing existing Highlights (Step 8), aim for the same length or shorter, not adding clarifying detail on each addition.

When uncertain, leave the entry in the full list and note it as a Highlights candidate in the summary.

6. Propose Upgrade notes

Upgrade notes go under ### Upgrade notes for X.0. Most runs find none — that's normal. Propose one when the delta contains:

• A removed or renamed setting in zproject/*settings.py.
• A required setting that previously had a default, or a default changed in a way that affects behavior.
• A removed installation platform or dropped Postgres / Python / Node major version.
• Any other change that could be reasonably expected to require some system administrators to take manual action as part of the upgrade.
• A migration expected to take a long time on large installations, or any command admins must run manually.

Detection is mechanical, not abstract:

# Settings template — the server administrator's config file. Note many
# changes in inline comment documentation require no action.
git diff <base>..upstream/main -- \
    zproject/default_settings.py \
    zproject/prod_settings_template.py \
    zproject/computed_settings.py

# Removed config / scripts / puppet directories.
git log --diff-filter=D --name-status <base>..upstream/main -- \
    'puppet/' 'scripts/' 'zproject/'

# Subject-line signals (kept narrow because broader patterns add
# false positives faster than they catch true positives).
git log <base>..upstream/main \
    --grep='Remove .* support' \
    --grep='no longer support' -i

Treat any net removal from prod_settings_template.py as an upgrade note candidate by default.

When drafting, mirror historical Upgrade notes style: link to the relevant operations doc, name affected settings in backticks, and tell the admin what concrete action to take.

7. Place entries

Edit docs/overview/changelog.md directly. When folding, edit the existing bullet in place rather than adding a new one.

Redundancy check before each new entry. Grep the existing target section for the feature/integration name; if something matches, default to fold or skip. This catches commits whose subjects look like new-feature additions but actually document or extend something already in the changelog.

8. Verify

Re-read the full updated section once for:

• Duplicate or near-duplicate entries (dedupe pre-existing ones too — the previous draft sometimes has them).
• Highlights vs. Full feature changelog dedupe. No bullet should appear in both. (11.0's "Migrated translation platform from Transifex to Weblate" was a real historical case where it ended up in both.)
• Grammar, typos, missing periods.
• Operator and syntax formatting (operators with their colon, e.g., mentions:, is:followed; settings in backticks).
• Compound entries that should split, or sibling entries that should fold.
• Style consistency with the last few releases' sections.

Polish pass. Re-read each existing bullet you didn't touch and copyedit obvious infelicities.

Retraction check — look for commits walking back prior claims:

git log <base>..upstream/main --grep='retract\|walk back\|incorrectly\|never shipped' -i

If a feature was claimed in the previous draft but reverted or scoped down, edit or remove the prior entry — don't leave it stale.

Then:

./tools/lint --fix docs/overview/changelog.md

Report a summary: candidate commits surveyed, entries added/folded, Highlights or Upgrade notes proposed, parallel maintenance release section if any. Include interesting choices — places where rules conflicted or you weren't sure what was accurate.

Style rules

When uncertain, find the closest existing bullet in the file and mimic it.

• One sentence per entry, two only when truly necessary (e.g., a redesign with multiple aspects worth naming).
• Active voice. Start with Added, Improved, Redesigned, Renamed, Removed, Fixed, or a noun-phrase ("The Markdown process now…", "Channel privacy icons now appear…"). End with a period.
• No commit-message-style justification. Don't say "matching Y" or "(Fixes #N)". State what changed, not why. Use "previously…" only when the prior behavior is itself the user-visible point of the bullet (e.g., 11.0's "Topic permalinks now consistently prefer the latest message in a topic for anchoring; previously, the oldest message was sometimes used.") — not as bare commit-message justification for a change.
• No exhaustive enumeration. "Many event types" beats listing five of them.
• Technical names in backticks. Operators with their colon (mentions:, is:followed); settings, file types, env vars in backticks. Use (e.g., ...) (lowercase, with periods).
• Avoid colloquial words that don't fit the documentation's professional tone. Don't speculate about backports or future releases — flag those for the user instead.
• Wrap at ~70 chars except links and long identifiers.
• Be precise. Double-check implicatures — e.g., naming "a new type of GitHub integration" shouldn't suggest there was no prior GitHub integration.
• Linking to the Help Center on zulip.com or ReadTheDocs via relative links is welcome (historical entries don't because of time pressure, not policy).
• Use of Zulip standard terminology and readability for a sysadmin who has never look at the Zulip implementation. Highlights should use user-facing terminology like the help center does.

Folding rules

When a new commit refines or extends an existing entry, edit that entry in place. Examples from the 12.0-beta2 tag:

• KLIPY GIF provider → folded into the existing GIF picker redesign as "Giphy, Tenor, and KLIPY".
• GIF picker resize → folded into the same redesign as "with nice keyboard UI, a resizable popover, and…".
• Integrations catalog and integration doc page redesigns → folded into the existing API/legal docs redesign entry.
• SAML full_name sync → appended onto the existing SAML email- sync entry as a second sentence.
• LDAP email-sync extended to periodic sync_ldap_user_data runs → appended onto the existing LDAP/SAML email-sync entry rather than written as a parallel bullet. (When an X-on-event feature gets a Y-on-other-event follow-up, write one bullet covering both.)
• Mattermost importer gaining bot/self-DM/multi-team support → folded onto the existing data-import-tools entry as a second sentence ("…The Mattermost importer now supports combining multiple teams, importing bot users, and self-DMs.").
• Removed-integrations cluster (Hubot, Dark Sky, Codeship-as-legacy in 12.0-beta2) → folded into the existing "Removed several integrations…" parenthetical list rather than as new bullets. Only fold removals that share both subsystem path AND feature category — e.g., webhook removals fold together; data-import tool removals fold together; don't mix the two (Gitter's data import tool removal does not fold into a webhook list).
• Operational-follow-up fold: when a bug-fix commit lands together with a follow-up that adds a cron job, retry, validation, or detection tool guarding the same class of bug, fold the follow-up as a second sentence on the originating fix. The 11.1 subscriber-count bullet is the canonical example: "Fixed subscriber counts after data import being incorrect in the database, which could cause removing channel subscribers to crash after a data import. Also added a daily refresh to cached subscriber counts, in case of race conditions."

When NOT to fold: if no existing entry names the feature area, write a new bullet. E.g., Discord auth got its own bullet in 12.0-beta2 because no prior auth-backend bullet covered it. The folding rule is "look for a home" not "always fold."

Within-subsystem rollup. When 4+ commits each lightly improve distinct items in one subsystem (e.g., five separate webhook integrations each getting 2–3 polish commits), write one rollup bullet listing the affected items parenthetically — see the 12.0-beta2 webhook entry: "Improved many webhook integrations, including Travis CI (…), PagerDuty (…), Jira (…), GitLab (…), and Harbor (…)." Several consecutive refactor commits that appear to be from a single pull request should not be treated as distinct items.

The general pattern: if there's already an entry that names the feature area, look for a way to grow it before writing a new bullet. It's often necessary to remove less important details when folding to preserve the overall level of conciseness of the entry.

Maintenance release mode

When the base is a stable release tag (e.g., 11.4), the workflow runs but with several differences. 10.3 is the strongest single exemplar to compare against — it has a clear non-XSS CVE bullet, a "Fixed an important bug where…" admin-impact phrasing, and infrastructure tooling bullets at the right granularity. 11.5, 11.6, and 10.4 are useful secondary references.

Section shape: add ### Zulip Server N.M under ## Zulip Server N.x series — no #### Highlights, no #### Full feature changelog. Body is a flat bulleted list with _Released YYYY-MM-DD_ (or _Unreleased_ while drafting).

Survey range: the stable branch, not upstream/main:

git log <prev-stable-tag>..stable-N --format="%H %s"

api_docs/changelog.md will typically be empty for this range — that's expected, not a signal nothing is user-facing.

Ordering: CVEs first, then user-visible fixes (web/mobile, email/imports), then self-hosting and infrastructure, then translations. CVE entries describe the vulnerability, not the fix — e.g., from 10.3, "CVE-2025-47930: Restrictions on creating public or private channels were incorrectly not applied when editing the channel type for an existing channel. This issue only impacted configurations where users could create private channels but not public channels, or vice versa." Note any required user interaction; credit reporters when commit metadata names them.

Same-release fix analysis. Compare against the previous maintenance release within this major release series. Ask "would a self-hoster running N.M-1 notice this?".

CVE absorbs same-CVE hardening. Backport commits that fix or harden the same vulnerability as a CVE entry fold into that CVE bullet rather than getting their own entry. Look for shared CVE numbers in commit messages, or path-traversal/sanitize/XSS commits clustered in time around the CVE-numbered commit.

Splitter, not lumper, but with judgment. Distinct bugs go in distinct bullets — admins skim for the issue they hit. The folding rules above are for major-release narrative flow; maintenance changelogs are reference material. But the splitter rule is not "include everything you don't fold"; the "would a self-hoster on N.M-1 actually notice and care" gut-check still suppresses small internal Puppet refactors, dev-tooling cleanups, etc. Several small fixes touching the same widget across one cycle (stream_list:, channel_folders:, sidebar tweaks) usually fold into a single "Fixed several bugs in the channel list sidebar" bullet rather than three thin entries.

Tone: descriptive — "Fixed X.", "Improved Y.", "Updated Z." — minimal prose, name affected settings in backticks, mention exact subsystem (postfix, setup-certbot, nginx, S3, the email gateway). Slightly more admin-facing detail than major-release entries.

Upgrade notes are rare in maintenance releases (backports usually preserve compatibility) but possible. Apply Step 6's commands; expect zero hits most of the time.

Final notes

Report to the user notes on any changelog items that might need follow-up work or documentation before we can happily advertise them in a release blog post. Report to the user any changelog items that should perhaps be advertised in landing pages (templates/corporate/).