v0.4.2

0.4.2 (2026-09-12)

The report in the README did not reproduce, on a tool whose whole claim is that it does. The front
page shows a real report on langchain-ai/openwiki at 1e6d54c and invites the reader to recompute
it. Running the stated command at the stated commit with the current build gave different numbers, and
a different fingerprint:

figure	README said	actually computes
share of commits	71 of 233, 30.5%	71 of 235, 30.2%
test file changes	393 of 656, 59.9%	393 of 657, 59.8%
excluded lines	2.2%	2.6%
absence factor	1 of 71 authors	1 of 73

The block was generated on 5 September, before 0.4.0 and 0.4.1 changed what the report covers, and
nothing in CI compared it against a fresh run, so it drifted in silence. For this tool that is the
worst inconsistency available: a reader who accepted the invitation would have found the published
figures disagreeing with the tool that produced them, with no way to tell a stale document from a
dishonest one. Regenerated at the same commit in both languages, with the prose that cites the shares
updated. The fingerprint still differs per run by design, because its key is random unless
--fingerprint-key is passed.

Nothing in src/, bin/ or the package manifest changed since 0.4.1, so a report you generate is
byte for byte what 0.4.1 generated and one written before this release still verifies.

CITATION.cff and both READMEs now cite the archived release by DOI, so a figure quoted in a document
can name the version that produced it.

Full Changelog: v0.4.1...v0.4.2