[finding] docs(protocol): the Backward Compatibility page's Breaking Change Process names two GitHub labels that do not exist, and a "2 MINOR releases" survival guarantee with no mechanism #14210

Closed
Bug
#14385
Closed
[finding] docs(protocol): the Backward Compatibility page's Breaking Change Process names two GitHub labels that do not exist, and a "2 MINOR releases" survival guarantee with no mechanism#14210
Bug
#14385
Assignees
baozhoutao
Labels
documentationImprovements or additions to documentationdomain:devxpriority:p2Medium: important, M3

Description

@baozhoutao
baozhoutao
opened on Sep 1, 2026

Found while implementing #13893 (which corrected the page's MAJOR/MINOR claims and deleted the unsourced "Minimum 30-day community review period"). These two are the same defect class as that 30-day claim — quantified or procedural promises on a customer-facing policy page with nothing behind them — but a different class from #13893's version-number defect, so they were deliberately left untouched there rather than widened into that PR.

1. Two named labels do not exist in this repository

content/docs/protocol/backward-compatibility.mdx tells readers to use two labels:

  • Breaking Change Process, step 1 — "Breaking changes are proposed as GitHub issues with the breaking-change label."
  • Reporting Compatibility Issues, step 2 — "File a GitHub issue with the compatibility label."

Measured against the live label set (GET /repos/objectstack-ai/objectstack/labels?per_page=100, 61 labels): neither breaking-change nor compatibility is among them. The only label matching /break|compat|rfc/i is protocol:breaking.

So a reader following the page files an issue with a label they cannot apply. The likely fix is mechanical — point step 1 at protocol:breaking — but the right target for step 2 is a judgment call (whether compatibility reports get their own label or fold into protocol:breaking), which is why this is a card and not a drive-by edit.

2. The "minimum 2 MINOR releases" survival guarantee has no located mechanism

The deprecation timeline's summary callout promises:

Minimum guarantee: Deprecated features survive for at least 2 MINOR releases before they can be removed.

No enforcing mechanism was located. It is the same shape as the 30-day review claim that triage ruled binary on in #13893 (「找到可指向的真实流程证据并在页上给出出处,或删除该承诺」), and it sits in tension with ADR-0049 enforce-or-remove, whose disposition set is enforce / mark experimental / remove — it prescribes no deprecation dwell time before removal.

⚠️ Note this claim was preserved verbatim by #13893's PR: that PR changed only which release type a removal lands in (MAJOR to MINOR) and deliberately did not touch the dwell-time promise, so as not to endorse an unverified number while correcting a different one. It is unresolved, not settled.

Suggested disposition

Same binary triage applied to the 30-day claim: either cite the real mechanism on the page, or delete the guarantee. If a dwell-time rule is genuinely wanted, that is a policy decision for the maintainer rather than a docs edit — ADR-0049 removals appear to ship without one today.

Scope note

Docs-only, one file: content/docs/protocol/backward-compatibility.mdx. Filed unassigned for triage.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

documentationImprovements or additions to documentationdomain:devxpriority:p2Medium: important, M3

Type

Bug

Projects

No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions

    , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Add copy buttons to all 
     blocks\n(function() {\n function addCopyButtons() {\n document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {\n if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;\n codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');\n \n var btn = document.createElement('button');\n btn.textContent = 'Copy';\n btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';\n btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };\n btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };\n btn.onclick = function() {\n navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {\n btn.textContent = 'Copied!';\n setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);\n });\n };\n codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';\n codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);\n });\n }\n \n addCopyButtons();\n \n // Re-run on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '

    Skip to content
    [finding] docs(protocol): the Backward Compatibility page's Breaking Change Process names two GitHub labels that do not exist, and a "2 MINOR releases" survival guarantee with no mechanism #14210
    Closed
    Bug
    #14385
    Closed
    [finding] docs(protocol): the Backward Compatibility page's Breaking Change Process names two GitHub labels that do not exist, and a "2 MINOR releases" survival guarantee with no mechanism#14210
    Bug
    #14385
    Assignees
    baozhoutao
    Labels
    documentationImprovements or additions to documentationdomain:devxpriority:p2Medium: important, M3
    Description
    @baozhoutao
    baozhoutao
    opened on Sep 1, 2026
    Found while implementing #13893 (which corrected the page's MAJOR/MINOR claims and deleted the unsourced "Minimum 30-day community review period"). These two are the same defect class as that 30-day claim — quantified or procedural promises on a customer-facing policy page with nothing behind them — but a different class from #13893's version-number defect, so they were deliberately left untouched there rather than widened into that PR.
    1. Two named labels do not exist in this repository
    content/docs/protocol/backward-compatibility.mdx tells readers to use two labels:
    • Breaking Change Process, step 1 — "Breaking changes are proposed as GitHub issues with the breaking-change label."
    • Reporting Compatibility Issues, step 2 — "File a GitHub issue with the compatibility label."
    Measured against the live label set (GET /repos/objectstack-ai/objectstack/labels?per_page=100, 61 labels): neither breaking-change nor compatibility is among them. The only label matching /break|compat|rfc/i is protocol:breaking.
    So a reader following the page files an issue with a label they cannot apply. The likely fix is mechanical — point step 1 at protocol:breaking — but the right target for step 2 is a judgment call (whether compatibility reports get their own label or fold into protocol:breaking), which is why this is a card and not a drive-by edit.
    2. The "minimum 2 MINOR releases" survival guarantee has no located mechanism
    The deprecation timeline's summary callout promises:
    Minimum guarantee: Deprecated features survive for at least 2 MINOR releases before they can be removed.
    No enforcing mechanism was located. It is the same shape as the 30-day review claim that triage ruled binary on in #13893 (「找到可指向的真实流程证据并在页上给出出处,或删除该承诺」), and it sits in tension with ADR-0049 enforce-or-remove, whose disposition set is enforce / mark experimental / remove — it prescribes no deprecation dwell time before removal.
    ⚠️ Note this claim was preserved verbatim by #13893's PR: that PR changed only which release type a removal lands in (MAJOR to MINOR) and deliberately did not touch the dwell-time promise, so as not to endorse an unverified number while correcting a different one. It is unresolved, not settled.
    Suggested disposition
    Same binary triage applied to the 30-day claim: either cite the real mechanism on the page, or delete the guarantee. If a dwell-time rule is genuinely wanted, that is a policy decision for the maintainer rather than a docs edit — ADR-0049 removals appear to ship without one today.
    Scope note
    Docs-only, one file: content/docs/protocol/backward-compatibility.mdx. Filed unassigned for triage.
    Metadata
    Metadata
    Assignees
    Labels
    documentationImprovements or additions to documentationdomain:devxpriority:p2Medium: important, M3
    Type
    Bug
    Projects
    No projects
      Milestone
      No milestone
      Relationships
      None yet
      Development
      No branches or pull requests
      Issue actions
      
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode\n(function() {\n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '\n .markdown-body {\n color-scheme: dark light;\n }\n .markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }\n .markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }\n .markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }\n .markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }\n .markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }\n .markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }\n ';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n})();", "GitHub Dark Mode README Fix");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

      Skip to content
      [finding] docs(protocol): the Backward Compatibility page's Breaking Change Process names two GitHub labels that do not exist, and a "2 MINOR releases" survival guarantee with no mechanism #14210
      Closed
      Bug
      #14385
      Closed
      [finding] docs(protocol): the Backward Compatibility page's Breaking Change Process names two GitHub labels that do not exist, and a "2 MINOR releases" survival guarantee with no mechanism#14210
      Bug
      #14385
      Assignees
      baozhoutao
      Labels
      documentationImprovements or additions to documentationdomain:devxpriority:p2Medium: important, M3
      Description
      @baozhoutao
      baozhoutao
      opened on Sep 1, 2026
      Found while implementing #13893 (which corrected the page's MAJOR/MINOR claims and deleted the unsourced "Minimum 30-day community review period"). These two are the same defect class as that 30-day claim — quantified or procedural promises on a customer-facing policy page with nothing behind them — but a different class from #13893's version-number defect, so they were deliberately left untouched there rather than widened into that PR.
      1. Two named labels do not exist in this repository
      content/docs/protocol/backward-compatibility.mdx tells readers to use two labels:
      • Breaking Change Process, step 1 — "Breaking changes are proposed as GitHub issues with the breaking-change label."
      • Reporting Compatibility Issues, step 2 — "File a GitHub issue with the compatibility label."
      Measured against the live label set (GET /repos/objectstack-ai/objectstack/labels?per_page=100, 61 labels): neither breaking-change nor compatibility is among them. The only label matching /break|compat|rfc/i is protocol:breaking.
      So a reader following the page files an issue with a label they cannot apply. The likely fix is mechanical — point step 1 at protocol:breaking — but the right target for step 2 is a judgment call (whether compatibility reports get their own label or fold into protocol:breaking), which is why this is a card and not a drive-by edit.
      2. The "minimum 2 MINOR releases" survival guarantee has no located mechanism
      The deprecation timeline's summary callout promises:
      Minimum guarantee: Deprecated features survive for at least 2 MINOR releases before they can be removed.
      No enforcing mechanism was located. It is the same shape as the 30-day review claim that triage ruled binary on in #13893 (「找到可指向的真实流程证据并在页上给出出处,或删除该承诺」), and it sits in tension with ADR-0049 enforce-or-remove, whose disposition set is enforce / mark experimental / remove — it prescribes no deprecation dwell time before removal.
      ⚠️ Note this claim was preserved verbatim by #13893's PR: that PR changed only which release type a removal lands in (MAJOR to MINOR) and deliberately did not touch the dwell-time promise, so as not to endorse an unverified number while correcting a different one. It is unresolved, not settled.
      Suggested disposition
      Same binary triage applied to the 30-day claim: either cite the real mechanism on the page, or delete the guarantee. If a dwell-time rule is genuinely wanted, that is a policy decision for the maintainer rather than a docs edit — ADR-0049 removals appear to ship without one today.
      Scope note
      Docs-only, one file: content/docs/protocol/backward-compatibility.mdx. Filed unassigned for triage.
      Metadata
      Metadata
      Assignees
      Labels
      documentationImprovements or additions to documentationdomain:devxpriority:p2Medium: important, M3
      Type
      Bug
      Projects
      No projects
        Milestone
        No milestone
        Relationships
        None yet
        Development
        No branches or pull requests
        Issue actions
        
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer\n(function() {\n var ref = document.referrer;\n var terms = [];\n \n if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {\n var url = new URL(ref);\n var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');\n if (q) {\n terms = q.split(/\\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });\n }\n }\n \n if (terms.length === 0) return;\n \n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n \n function highlight(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node\n var text = node.textContent;\n var found = false;\n terms.forEach(function(term) {\n var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\\]\\\\]/g, '\\\\') + ')', 'gi');\n if (regex.test(text)) {\n found = true;\n var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();\n var parts = text.split(regex);\n parts.forEach(function(part, i) {\n if (i % 2 === 0) {\n frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));\n } else {\n var span = document.createElement('span');\n span.className = 'userscript-highlight';\n span.textContent = part;\n frag.appendChild(span);\n }\n });\n node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);\n }\n });\n } else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element\n var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];\n if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {\n Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);\n }\n }\n }\n \n highlight(document.body);\n \n // Re-highlight on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Highlight Search Terms");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

        Skip to content
        [finding] docs(protocol): the Backward Compatibility page's Breaking Change Process names two GitHub labels that do not exist, and a "2 MINOR releases" survival guarantee with no mechanism #14210
        Closed
        Bug
        #14385
        Closed
        [finding] docs(protocol): the Backward Compatibility page's Breaking Change Process names two GitHub labels that do not exist, and a "2 MINOR releases" survival guarantee with no mechanism#14210
        Bug
        #14385
        Assignees
        baozhoutao
        Labels
        documentationImprovements or additions to documentationdomain:devxpriority:p2Medium: important, M3
        Description
        @baozhoutao
        baozhoutao
        opened on Sep 1, 2026
        Found while implementing #13893 (which corrected the page's MAJOR/MINOR claims and deleted the unsourced "Minimum 30-day community review period"). These two are the same defect class as that 30-day claim — quantified or procedural promises on a customer-facing policy page with nothing behind them — but a different class from #13893's version-number defect, so they were deliberately left untouched there rather than widened into that PR.
        1. Two named labels do not exist in this repository
        content/docs/protocol/backward-compatibility.mdx tells readers to use two labels:
        • Breaking Change Process, step 1 — "Breaking changes are proposed as GitHub issues with the breaking-change label."
        • Reporting Compatibility Issues, step 2 — "File a GitHub issue with the compatibility label."
        Measured against the live label set (GET /repos/objectstack-ai/objectstack/labels?per_page=100, 61 labels): neither breaking-change nor compatibility is among them. The only label matching /break|compat|rfc/i is protocol:breaking.
        So a reader following the page files an issue with a label they cannot apply. The likely fix is mechanical — point step 1 at protocol:breaking — but the right target for step 2 is a judgment call (whether compatibility reports get their own label or fold into protocol:breaking), which is why this is a card and not a drive-by edit.
        2. The "minimum 2 MINOR releases" survival guarantee has no located mechanism
        The deprecation timeline's summary callout promises:
        Minimum guarantee: Deprecated features survive for at least 2 MINOR releases before they can be removed.
        No enforcing mechanism was located. It is the same shape as the 30-day review claim that triage ruled binary on in #13893 (「找到可指向的真实流程证据并在页上给出出处,或删除该承诺」), and it sits in tension with ADR-0049 enforce-or-remove, whose disposition set is enforce / mark experimental / remove — it prescribes no deprecation dwell time before removal.
        ⚠️ Note this claim was preserved verbatim by #13893's PR: that PR changed only which release type a removal lands in (MAJOR to MINOR) and deliberately did not touch the dwell-time promise, so as not to endorse an unverified number while correcting a different one. It is unresolved, not settled.
        Suggested disposition
        Same binary triage applied to the 30-day claim: either cite the real mechanism on the page, or delete the guarantee. If a dwell-time rule is genuinely wanted, that is a policy decision for the maintainer rather than a docs edit — ADR-0049 removals appear to ship without one today.
        Scope note
        Docs-only, one file: content/docs/protocol/backward-compatibility.mdx. Filed unassigned for triage.
        Metadata
        Metadata
        Assignees
        Labels
        documentationImprovements or additions to documentationdomain:devxpriority:p2Medium: important, M3
        Type
        Bug
        Projects
        No projects
          Milestone
          No milestone
          Relationships
          None yet
          Development
          No branches or pull requests
          Issue actions
          
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page\n(function() {\n var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',\n 'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',\n 'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];\n \n function cleanUrl(url) {\n try {\n var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);\n var changed = false;\n trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {\n if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {\n u.searchParams.delete(p);\n changed = true;\n }\n });\n return changed ? u.toString() : url;\n } catch (e) {\n return url;\n }\n }\n \n function cleanLinks() {\n document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n \n cleanLinks();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1) {\n if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();\n node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Remove Tracking Parameters from Links");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "youtube.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '

          Skip to content
          [finding] docs(protocol): the Backward Compatibility page's Breaking Change Process names two GitHub labels that do not exist, and a "2 MINOR releases" survival guarantee with no mechanism #14210
          Closed
          Bug
          #14385
          Closed
          [finding] docs(protocol): the Backward Compatibility page's Breaking Change Process names two GitHub labels that do not exist, and a "2 MINOR releases" survival guarantee with no mechanism#14210
          Bug
          #14385
          Assignees
          baozhoutao
          Labels
          documentationImprovements or additions to documentationdomain:devxpriority:p2Medium: important, M3
          Description
          @baozhoutao
          baozhoutao
          opened on Sep 1, 2026
          Found while implementing #13893 (which corrected the page's MAJOR/MINOR claims and deleted the unsourced "Minimum 30-day community review period"). These two are the same defect class as that 30-day claim — quantified or procedural promises on a customer-facing policy page with nothing behind them — but a different class from #13893's version-number defect, so they were deliberately left untouched there rather than widened into that PR.
          1. Two named labels do not exist in this repository
          content/docs/protocol/backward-compatibility.mdx tells readers to use two labels:
          • Breaking Change Process, step 1 — "Breaking changes are proposed as GitHub issues with the breaking-change label."
          • Reporting Compatibility Issues, step 2 — "File a GitHub issue with the compatibility label."
          Measured against the live label set (GET /repos/objectstack-ai/objectstack/labels?per_page=100, 61 labels): neither breaking-change nor compatibility is among them. The only label matching /break|compat|rfc/i is protocol:breaking.
          So a reader following the page files an issue with a label they cannot apply. The likely fix is mechanical — point step 1 at protocol:breaking — but the right target for step 2 is a judgment call (whether compatibility reports get their own label or fold into protocol:breaking), which is why this is a card and not a drive-by edit.
          2. The "minimum 2 MINOR releases" survival guarantee has no located mechanism
          The deprecation timeline's summary callout promises:
          Minimum guarantee: Deprecated features survive for at least 2 MINOR releases before they can be removed.
          No enforcing mechanism was located. It is the same shape as the 30-day review claim that triage ruled binary on in #13893 (「找到可指向的真实流程证据并在页上给出出处,或删除该承诺」), and it sits in tension with ADR-0049 enforce-or-remove, whose disposition set is enforce / mark experimental / remove — it prescribes no deprecation dwell time before removal.
          ⚠️ Note this claim was preserved verbatim by #13893's PR: that PR changed only which release type a removal lands in (MAJOR to MINOR) and deliberately did not touch the dwell-time promise, so as not to endorse an unverified number while correcting a different one. It is unresolved, not settled.
          Suggested disposition
          Same binary triage applied to the 30-day claim: either cite the real mechanism on the page, or delete the guarantee. If a dwell-time rule is genuinely wanted, that is a policy decision for the maintainer rather than a docs edit — ADR-0049 removals appear to ship without one today.
          Scope note
          Docs-only, one file: content/docs/protocol/backward-compatibility.mdx. Filed unassigned for triage.
          Metadata
          Metadata
          Assignees
          Labels
          documentationImprovements or additions to documentationdomain:devxpriority:p2Medium: important, M3
          Type
          Bug
          Projects
          No projects
            Milestone
            No milestone
            Relationships
            None yet
            Development
            No branches or pull requests
            Issue actions
            
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube\n(function() {\n function tryTheater() {\n var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label=\"Theater mode\"], ytd-player #player button[title=\"Theater mode\"]');\n if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {\n btn.click();\n }\n }\n \n // Try immediately\n tryTheater();\n \n // Try after navigation (SPA)\n var lastUrl = location.href;\n setInterval(function() {\n if (location.href !== lastUrl) {\n lastUrl = location.href;\n setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);\n }\n }, 1000);\n \n // Also try on player load\n var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "YouTube Theater Mode Default");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

            Skip to content
            [finding] docs(protocol): the Backward Compatibility page's Breaking Change Process names two GitHub labels that do not exist, and a "2 MINOR releases" survival guarantee with no mechanism #14210
            Closed
            Bug
            #14385
            Closed
            [finding] docs(protocol): the Backward Compatibility page's Breaking Change Process names two GitHub labels that do not exist, and a "2 MINOR releases" survival guarantee with no mechanism#14210
            Bug
            #14385
            Assignees
            baozhoutao
            Labels
            documentationImprovements or additions to documentationdomain:devxpriority:p2Medium: important, M3
            Description
            @baozhoutao
            baozhoutao
            opened on Sep 1, 2026
            Found while implementing #13893 (which corrected the page's MAJOR/MINOR claims and deleted the unsourced "Minimum 30-day community review period"). These two are the same defect class as that 30-day claim — quantified or procedural promises on a customer-facing policy page with nothing behind them — but a different class from #13893's version-number defect, so they were deliberately left untouched there rather than widened into that PR.
            1. Two named labels do not exist in this repository
            content/docs/protocol/backward-compatibility.mdx tells readers to use two labels:
            • Breaking Change Process, step 1 — "Breaking changes are proposed as GitHub issues with the breaking-change label."
            • Reporting Compatibility Issues, step 2 — "File a GitHub issue with the compatibility label."
            Measured against the live label set (GET /repos/objectstack-ai/objectstack/labels?per_page=100, 61 labels): neither breaking-change nor compatibility is among them. The only label matching /break|compat|rfc/i is protocol:breaking.
            So a reader following the page files an issue with a label they cannot apply. The likely fix is mechanical — point step 1 at protocol:breaking — but the right target for step 2 is a judgment call (whether compatibility reports get their own label or fold into protocol:breaking), which is why this is a card and not a drive-by edit.
            2. The "minimum 2 MINOR releases" survival guarantee has no located mechanism
            The deprecation timeline's summary callout promises:
            Minimum guarantee: Deprecated features survive for at least 2 MINOR releases before they can be removed.
            No enforcing mechanism was located. It is the same shape as the 30-day review claim that triage ruled binary on in #13893 (「找到可指向的真实流程证据并在页上给出出处,或删除该承诺」), and it sits in tension with ADR-0049 enforce-or-remove, whose disposition set is enforce / mark experimental / remove — it prescribes no deprecation dwell time before removal.
            ⚠️ Note this claim was preserved verbatim by #13893's PR: that PR changed only which release type a removal lands in (MAJOR to MINOR) and deliberately did not touch the dwell-time promise, so as not to endorse an unverified number while correcting a different one. It is unresolved, not settled.
            Suggested disposition
            Same binary triage applied to the 30-day claim: either cite the real mechanism on the page, or delete the guarantee. If a dwell-time rule is genuinely wanted, that is a policy decision for the maintainer rather than a docs edit — ADR-0049 removals appear to ship without one today.
            Scope note
            Docs-only, one file: content/docs/protocol/backward-compatibility.mdx. Filed unassigned for triage.
            Metadata
            Metadata
            Assignees
            Labels
            documentationImprovements or additions to documentationdomain:devxpriority:p2Medium: important, M3
            Type
            Bug
            Projects
            No projects
              Milestone
              No milestone
              Relationships
              None yet
              Development
              No branches or pull requests
              Issue actions
              
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content\n(function() {\n function unstick() {\n document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role=\"banner\"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*=\"position: fixed\"], [style*=\"position:sticky\"]').forEach(function(el) {\n if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || \n getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {\n el.style.position = 'static';\n el.style.top = 'auto';\n el.style.zIndex = 'auto';\n }\n });\n }\n \n unstick();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });\n})();", "Kill Sticky Headers");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

              Skip to content
              [finding] docs(protocol): the Backward Compatibility page's Breaking Change Process names two GitHub labels that do not exist, and a "2 MINOR releases" survival guarantee with no mechanism #14210
              Closed
              Bug
              #14385
              Closed
              [finding] docs(protocol): the Backward Compatibility page's Breaking Change Process names two GitHub labels that do not exist, and a "2 MINOR releases" survival guarantee with no mechanism#14210
              Bug
              #14385
              Assignees
              baozhoutao
              Labels
              documentationImprovements or additions to documentationdomain:devxpriority:p2Medium: important, M3
              Description
              @baozhoutao
              baozhoutao
              opened on Sep 1, 2026
              Found while implementing #13893 (which corrected the page's MAJOR/MINOR claims and deleted the unsourced "Minimum 30-day community review period"). These two are the same defect class as that 30-day claim — quantified or procedural promises on a customer-facing policy page with nothing behind them — but a different class from #13893's version-number defect, so they were deliberately left untouched there rather than widened into that PR.
              1. Two named labels do not exist in this repository
              content/docs/protocol/backward-compatibility.mdx tells readers to use two labels:
              • Breaking Change Process, step 1 — "Breaking changes are proposed as GitHub issues with the breaking-change label."
              • Reporting Compatibility Issues, step 2 — "File a GitHub issue with the compatibility label."
              Measured against the live label set (GET /repos/objectstack-ai/objectstack/labels?per_page=100, 61 labels): neither breaking-change nor compatibility is among them. The only label matching /break|compat|rfc/i is protocol:breaking.
              So a reader following the page files an issue with a label they cannot apply. The likely fix is mechanical — point step 1 at protocol:breaking — but the right target for step 2 is a judgment call (whether compatibility reports get their own label or fold into protocol:breaking), which is why this is a card and not a drive-by edit.
              2. The "minimum 2 MINOR releases" survival guarantee has no located mechanism
              The deprecation timeline's summary callout promises:
              Minimum guarantee: Deprecated features survive for at least 2 MINOR releases before they can be removed.
              No enforcing mechanism was located. It is the same shape as the 30-day review claim that triage ruled binary on in #13893 (「找到可指向的真实流程证据并在页上给出出处,或删除该承诺」), and it sits in tension with ADR-0049 enforce-or-remove, whose disposition set is enforce / mark experimental / remove — it prescribes no deprecation dwell time before removal.
              ⚠️ Note this claim was preserved verbatim by #13893's PR: that PR changed only which release type a removal lands in (MAJOR to MINOR) and deliberately did not touch the dwell-time promise, so as not to endorse an unverified number while correcting a different one. It is unresolved, not settled.
              Suggested disposition
              Same binary triage applied to the 30-day claim: either cite the real mechanism on the page, or delete the guarantee. If a dwell-time rule is genuinely wanted, that is a policy decision for the maintainer rather than a docs edit — ADR-0049 removals appear to ship without one today.
              Scope note
              Docs-only, one file: content/docs/protocol/backward-compatibility.mdx. Filed unassigned for triage.
              Metadata
              Metadata
              Assignees
              Labels
              documentationImprovements or additions to documentationdomain:devxpriority:p2Medium: important, M3
              Type
              Bug
              Projects
              No projects
                Milestone
                No milestone
                Relationships
                None yet
                Development
                No branches or pull requests
                Issue actions
                
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site\n(function() {\n var enabled = true;\n \n function applyDarkMode() {\n if (!enabled) return;\n \n // Create style element if it doesn't exist\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (!style) {\n style = document.createElement('style');\n style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n }\n \n // Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video\n style.textContent = '\n /* Invert everything except media */\n html {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #1a1a2e !important;\n }\n \n /* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */\n img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*=\"background-image\"] {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n }\n \n /* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */\n .no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,\n [data-theme=\"light\"], [data-theme=\"light\"],\n .ace_editor, .ace_editor *,\n .CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,\n .monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,\n .markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,\n .highlight, .highlight *,\n pre code, pre code * {\n filter: none !important;\n }\n \n /* Fix common UI elements */\n .modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #2d2d44 !important;\n border-color: #444 !important;\n }\n \n /* Scrollbars */\n ::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }\n \n /* Selection */\n ::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ';\n }\n \n function removeDarkMode() {\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (style) style.remove();\n }\n \n // Toggle with Alt+Shift+D\n document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {\n if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {\n e.preventDefault();\n enabled = !enabled;\n if (enabled) {\n applyDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');\n } else {\n removeDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');\n }\n }\n });\n \n // Apply on load\n applyDarkMode();\n \n // Re-apply on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {\n applyDarkMode();\n }\n });\n observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });\n \n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');\n})();", "Universal Dark Mode");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); }
})();
})();

                Skip to content
                [finding] docs(protocol): the Backward Compatibility page's Breaking Change Process names two GitHub labels that do not exist, and a "2 MINOR releases" survival guarantee with no mechanism #14210
                Closed
                Bug
                #14385
                Closed
                [finding] docs(protocol): the Backward Compatibility page's Breaking Change Process names two GitHub labels that do not exist, and a "2 MINOR releases" survival guarantee with no mechanism#14210
                Bug
                #14385
                Assignees
                baozhoutao
                Labels
                documentationImprovements or additions to documentationdomain:devxpriority:p2Medium: important, M3
                Description
                @baozhoutao
                baozhoutao
                opened on Sep 1, 2026
                Found while implementing #13893 (which corrected the page's MAJOR/MINOR claims and deleted the unsourced "Minimum 30-day community review period"). These two are the same defect class as that 30-day claim — quantified or procedural promises on a customer-facing policy page with nothing behind them — but a different class from #13893's version-number defect, so they were deliberately left untouched there rather than widened into that PR.
                1. Two named labels do not exist in this repository
                content/docs/protocol/backward-compatibility.mdx tells readers to use two labels:
                • Breaking Change Process, step 1 — "Breaking changes are proposed as GitHub issues with the breaking-change label."
                • Reporting Compatibility Issues, step 2 — "File a GitHub issue with the compatibility label."
                Measured against the live label set (GET /repos/objectstack-ai/objectstack/labels?per_page=100, 61 labels): neither breaking-change nor compatibility is among them. The only label matching /break|compat|rfc/i is protocol:breaking.
                So a reader following the page files an issue with a label they cannot apply. The likely fix is mechanical — point step 1 at protocol:breaking — but the right target for step 2 is a judgment call (whether compatibility reports get their own label or fold into protocol:breaking), which is why this is a card and not a drive-by edit.
                2. The "minimum 2 MINOR releases" survival guarantee has no located mechanism
                The deprecation timeline's summary callout promises:
                Minimum guarantee: Deprecated features survive for at least 2 MINOR releases before they can be removed.
                No enforcing mechanism was located. It is the same shape as the 30-day review claim that triage ruled binary on in #13893 (「找到可指向的真实流程证据并在页上给出出处,或删除该承诺」), and it sits in tension with ADR-0049 enforce-or-remove, whose disposition set is enforce / mark experimental / remove — it prescribes no deprecation dwell time before removal.
                ⚠️ Note this claim was preserved verbatim by #13893's PR: that PR changed only which release type a removal lands in (MAJOR to MINOR) and deliberately did not touch the dwell-time promise, so as not to endorse an unverified number while correcting a different one. It is unresolved, not settled.
                Suggested disposition
                Same binary triage applied to the 30-day claim: either cite the real mechanism on the page, or delete the guarantee. If a dwell-time rule is genuinely wanted, that is a policy decision for the maintainer rather than a docs edit — ADR-0049 removals appear to ship without one today.
                Scope note
                Docs-only, one file: content/docs/protocol/backward-compatibility.mdx. Filed unassigned for triage.
                Metadata
                Metadata
                Assignees
                Labels
                documentationImprovements or additions to documentationdomain:devxpriority:p2Medium: important, M3
                Type
                Bug
                Projects
                No projects
                  Milestone
                  No milestone
                  Relationships
                  None yet
                  Development
                  No branches or pull requests
                  Issue actions