Release v0.29.0 - #552
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: cc0978882d
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
|
||
| *No changes yet.* | ||
|
|
||
| ## [0.29.0] - 2026-07-28 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Rename the release-prep commit as required
The reviewed commit uses the subject Release v0.29.0, but release-prep commits must use chore(release): prepare vX.Y.Z; rename it to chore(release): prepare v0.29.0 so the release history follows the repository's required convention.
AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L172-L180
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| [package] | ||
| name = "agent-code-lib" | ||
| version = "0.28.0" | ||
| version = "0.29.0" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Replace the Codex commit author with the human author
The reviewed commit records Codex <codex@openai.com> as both author and committer, which adds the explicitly prohibited Codex attribution; recreate the proposed commit under the human author's identity before merging.
AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L199-L202
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
|
Both findings describe a commit that does not exist on this branch. Verified against the raw object rather than a summary: "Rename the release-prep commit" — it is already named "Replace the Codex commit author" — the commit is authored and committed by I am not acting on either. Renaming the commit to the name it already has, or rewriting authorship that is already the human author's, would be changing nothing while implying the rule had been broken. Worth noting for calibration: this is the first review in this cycle that was wrong on a checkable fact, and both findings were P1. Every previous one — across roughly a dozen rounds on #518 — held up when I checked it against the source, including several where I initially disagreed and turned out to be wrong myself. That track record is why I checked the object rather than assuming, and it is also why I am recording the miss rather than quietly ignoring it. If there is a real attribution or naming problem I have missed, quote the object and I will fix it immediately. @codex review |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Keep it up! Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
Summary
Release v0.29.0. 25 PRs since v0.28.0, headlined by the in-TUI session picker for
/resume(#518) and its cross-project resume work.Highlights
/resume(feat(tui): in-TUI session picker for /resume #518) — filterable list instead of an id, read and rebuilt off-thread so a large session no longer freezes input, cancellable mid-load. Project state moves with the resume: permissions, sandbox and bypass policy, hooks, tool visibility, MCP servers,[features]and[notifier]. Work staged against the departing conversation is reported back verbatim rather than run against the arriving one.git statuswithout coveringgit statusx.Verification (RELEASING.md section 4)
Run locally on this branch:
cargo check --all-targetscargo fmt --all -- --checkcargo clippy --all-targets -- -D warningscargo test --all-targets— passes except the threebwrap_*sandbox tests, which fail on this host for environment reasons (setting up uid map: Permission denied) and pass in CICargo.lockdiff is only theagent-codeandagent-code-libversion linesStill required before merge:
run-e2eworkflow (label added)After merge
Tag push drives
release.yml(binaries + crates.io),docker.yml, the npm publish workflow, and the Homebrew tap update. Do not run these manually.Known follow-ups, filed and deliberately not in this release: #537 (a resume does not restore the provider it was created against), #539 (conversation-scoped state has no single reset seam), #551 (project-root resolution blocks the TUI event loop during a cross-project resume).