docs: make the "Aligning @next" section consistent with the deprecation - #404
Conversation
![open-swe[bot]](https://github.githubassets.com/images/gravatars/gravatar-user-420.png){kind=avatar}
#403 deprecated @next but left the older section below it still describing the old world: "alignment is a manual step after every release", "always verify ... must show next == latest", and a straightforward recipe for putting a token back. All three now contradict the policy two sections up. This file has already shipped an internal contradiction twice in two days and both times a reviewer caught it, so the pattern is worth naming: I keep ADDING a correct new section without reconciling what it supersedes. Now: alignment is explicitly optional and never gates a release; the expired secret is documented as not worth fixing rather than as a pending chore; the "make it automatic" recipe is retained but marked deliberately NOT recommended, with the reason (2FA-bypass tokens lose publishing ~Jan 2027, they expire silently, and it reintroduces a long-lived publish credential to an otherwise all-OIDC pipeline — the tag is deprecated, the credential would be real); and verification says `latest` is authoritative with `next` permitted to lag. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 49 minutes You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
WalkthroughThe publishing documentation makes ChangesPublishing guidance
Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~3 minutes Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers: 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1❌ Failed checks (1 warning)
✅ Passed checks (4 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Updates the release documentation in CLAUDE.md to remove internal contradictions around the now-deprecated @next dist-tag, aligning the “Aligning @next” section with the current policy that @latest is authoritative and @next may drift.
Changes:
- Reframes
NPM_TOKENexpiration as intentionally not worth fixing because@nextalignment is optional post-deprecation. - Clarifies manual
@nextalignment as optional and explicitly non-gating for releases. - Rewords the “make it automatic again” guidance to keep the steps but mark them as deliberately not recommended, and updates the “Checking” guidance to treat drift as expected.
💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@CLAUDE.md`:
- Around line 154-165: The earlier publishing summary must no longer claim that
CI automatically aligns `@next` or enforce an alias invariant. Update that summary
to state that `@latest` publication is required, while `@next` alignment is best
effort, optional, and non-blocking, consistent with the guidance in the manual
alignment and checking sections.
🪄 Autofix
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: bdd841a3-0cb3-422f-8649-932e698838c6
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
CLAUDE.md
…ed line
Third instance of the pattern I named in the previous commit, caught by review
again — which makes the lesson the point rather than the line.
Line 141 still described CI as aligning @next "per the alias invariant". Rather
than patch it and wait to be told about the next one, I grepped every mention of
alias / invariant / @next in the file:
- publish flow: now says the step ATTEMPTS alignment of a deprecated alias, is
inert while NPM_TOKEN is expired, and is not required for a correct release.
- the prerelease rule (twice, lines 10 and 106) justified itself by "the alias
policy". The rule still holds — a prerelease on @latest installs for everyone
— but the justification now stands on "there is only one channel" instead of
an invariant that no longer exists.
Fixing one flagged line at a time is what produced three rounds of this. The
check that actually works is: after changing a policy, grep the file for every
term that policy touches.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
#403 deprecated
@next, but left the older section below it describing the world before that decision:next == latest" — that invariant was retiredThe pattern worth naming
This file has shipped an internal contradiction twice in two days, and a reviewer caught it both times. The cause is consistent: I keep adding a correct new section without reconciling what it supersedes. Worth stating in the commit so the next edit checks the whole file rather than the paragraph being changed.
Now
latestis authoritative,nextmay lag, and that's expected.Docs only.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
Summary by CodeRabbit
@nextchannel alignment may remain inactive when the publishing token expires.latestremains the authoritative release channel.nextmay legitimately differ fromlatest.