# New automerge requirement: Release notes required for breaking package releases

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/new-automerge-requirement-release-notes-required-for-breaking-package-releases/123955>\
**Category:** Package Announcements\
**Tags:** general-registry, registryci\
**Created:** [December 18, 2024, 10:41am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/new-automerge-requirement-release-notes-required-for-breaking-package-releases/123955 "2024-12-18T10:41:37Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 28

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Eben60](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/eben60/32/13475_2.png) [@Eben60](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/Eben60)\
**Post date:** [December 25, 2024, 5:50pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/new-automerge-requirement-release-notes-required-for-breaking-package-releases/123955/28 "2024-12-25T17:50:15Z")

</div>

The new automerge requirement is actually decided, and obviously not going to be reversed. Therefore it might make sense to close this specific topic.

What however is worth discussing (and actually being discussed here) is how to provide Quality Control on package registration. We probably should start a new topic, or split part of the discussion above?

May I link here two relevant and relatively recent topics

> [@The present and the future of package registration](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/the-present-and-the-future-of-package-registration/99890):
>
> This has been on my mind for some time, but now that my package registration PR has been closed, I finally decided to take a few minutes to share. TLDR; Due to the fact that Julia packages are registered at “top level”, there is scarcity in regards to package names. This introduces unnecessary limits and friction. What do I mean by “top level”? Simply that the packages are not namespaced under an organisation. Like for example how NPM allows: [Creating and publishing an organization scoped pac…](https://docs.npmjs.com/creating-and-publishing-an-organization-scoped-package)

> [@Please more bureaucracy on package registrations!](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/please-more-bureaucracy-on-package-registrations/100018):
>
> BTW, is there a smiley for tongue-in-cheek? Inspired by the [The present and the future of package registration](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/the-present-and-the-future-of-package-registration/99890) thread, especially by the [response](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/the-present-and-the-future-of-package-registration/99890/49) by @Tamas_Papp to my comment and by the reference to this PR [Check that there are “enough” tests and documentation](https://github.com/JuliaRegistries/RegistryCI.jl/pull/492#top). Yes, automated checking some metrics on documentation and testing coverage of a new package would be nice to have. But what we can also do is to ask the package authors to fill in themselves a questionnaire, answering the questions on …

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/new-automerge-requirement-release-notes-required-for-breaking-package-releases/123955)._