codex - 💡(How to fix) Fix Version numbering policy (e.g. reason for missing `0.126.0` and `0.127.0`)? [1 comments, 2 participants]

Official PRs (…)
ON THIS PAGE

Recommended Tools

×6

Utilities matched from this issue’s tags and category — try them while you read without losing context.

GitHub issue graph ai analysis

Paste a GitHub issue URL. We fetch that issue, discover linked issues from bodies/comments/timeline, collect linked pull requests, and produce a structured English report.

The report is written in English Markdown for sharing and archival.

Helpful · Quick feedback

Loading…
GitHub stats
openai/codex#20784Fetched 2026-05-03 04:45:31
View on GitHub
Comments
1
Participants
2
Timeline
5
Reactions
0
Timeline (top)
labeled ×2commented ×1converted_to_discussion ×1locked ×1

Root Cause

  • Just out of curiosity, why do you sometimes skip some version numbers? This is a bit inconvenient because I usually compare the latest version number with the local one to estimate how far behind I am.
RAW_BUFFERClick to expand / collapse

I regularly check the release notes of codex, and often find some versions are skipped when a stable release is published.

For example, the next stable version after 0.125.0 is 0.128.0; 0.126.0 and 0.127.0 were skipped.

Regarding this, I have two questions:

  • Just out of curiosity, why do you sometimes skip some version numbers? This is a bit inconvenient because I usually compare the latest version number with the local one to estimate how far behind I am.

  • More importantly, when you release the version $N + M$ after the version $N$, skipping $N + 1,\ N + 2,\ \cdots,\ N + M - 1$, can we expect that the release note of the version $N+M$ contains all changes since the version $N$, not just the changes since $N + M - 1$?

extent analysis

TL;DR

The release notes of the skipped version's subsequent release should contain all changes since the previous stable version, not just the changes since the immediately preceding version.

Guidance

  • To verify if the release notes contain all changes since the previous stable version, check the release notes of the subsequent version for a comprehensive changelog.
  • When skipping version numbers, it's essential to ensure that the release notes of the subsequent version accurately reflect all changes made since the previous stable version.
  • If the release notes only contain changes since the immediately preceding version, it may be necessary to review the commit history or changelogs of the skipped versions to get a complete understanding of the changes.
  • Consider reaching out to the maintainers of codex to confirm their policy on release notes and version skipping.

Notes

The issue lacks information on the specific release notes or version control system used by codex, so it's difficult to provide a more detailed solution.

Recommendation

Apply workaround: Review the commit history or changelogs of skipped versions to ensure a complete understanding of changes, as the release notes of the subsequent version may not always contain all changes since the previous stable version.

Vote matrix · Quick signals

Works
Did the solution work? Tap to confirm.
Easy Fix
Was it a quick fix?
Time Saver
Did it save you time?
Blocking
Was it severely blocking?
Common Issue
Are others likely hitting this too?
Flaky / Intermittent
Is it intermittent?
Verified / Reproducible
Can you reproduce it reliably?
Loading…

Still need to ship something?

×6

Another batch ranked right after the header list — different links, same matching logic.

Back to top recommendations

TRENDING

codex - 💡(How to fix) Fix Version numbering policy (e.g. reason for missing `0.126.0` and `0.127.0`)? [1 comments, 2 participants]