docs: drop the changelog entry that a union merge brought back (#1119) - #1644
Merged
Conversation
The older #1515 wording of the password retention entry returned to [Unreleased] beside the #1547 rewrite, so 0.15.0 would have listed the same change twice. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Mw5XPncvpoN78zeazx5jgi
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
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Description
[Unreleased]inCHANGELOG.mdcarried the password retention entry twice: the #1547 rewrite ("queued changes", "encrypted password") and, five lines below it, the original #1515 wording ("queue rows", "encrypted value") that themerge=uniondriver re-added when the #1635 stack was brought up to date across that rewrite. Without this, 0.15.0 lists the same change twice. The older line is removed; the #1547 wording stays.Follow-up to #1638 and #1639.
Type of change
Testing
dotnet build JIM.slnsucceeds with zero errors (not applicable: changelog-only)dotnet test JIM.slnpasses (not applicable: changelog-only)scripts/Lint-Changelog.ps1passes; the duplicate-opening warning for this entry is gone.Documentation
docs/); page(s):engineering/) where a design/architecture doc would otherwise be staleDocs: n/a - removes a duplicated changelog line; no behaviour change.
Screenshots / output (if applicable)
n/a
Checklist
docs/DEVELOPER_GUIDE.mdAdditional context
The union driver re-adds lines rather than reconciling them, so any branch that merges across a changelog rewrite can bring the old wording back. The lint only warns on a shared opening, which is why this slipped through CI.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
https://claude.ai/code/session_01Mw5XPncvpoN78zeazx5jgi
Generated by Claude Code