I just had to backfill a year of docs release notes for an OSS repo. I ended up writing a small release tag driven generator: it walks git tags, collects merged PRs between releases, buckets them into categories, and renders Markdown/MDX grouped by year -> month -> category -> version. I also added an optional LLM step that outputs structured JSON via Pydantic schema for PR bullets that includes monthly summaries. It is idempotent and preserves manual edits or omissions, so you can auto-generate, then curate over time.
I’m curious what works for you in practice:
- Towncrier?
- reno?
- GitHub Releases / auto-generated notes?
- something else?
What do you like/hate about your current setup? Any tools you’d recommend?
If anyone wants to see the script I wrote, I am happy to share it and would love some constructive feedback.
You worked hard you added all those new features and fixed several bugs and hopefully introduced no new ones, take the time and write the release notes yourself or with the team, make it a moment of celebration, read them and refine them (even with LLMs) but be proud of what you just accomplished.
For me writing release notes is a joy moment why should automate it?
1. For OSS projects, GitHub Releases honestly work really well. You usually have contributors who understand the context, and readers who are technical enough to parse a changelog.
2. If you're talking to users, Release notes stop being a dev artifact and become a communication channel. They need to show up where users already are, in-app, email, Slack, etc. There are a bunch of tools like us (ReleaseNotes.io), LaunchNotes, AnnounceKit, Canny and others that help with that.
3. From what we see, the teams that have the most success with automation of this process treat GitHub PRs or Jira, Azure DevOps, Linear, GitHub issues as the source of truth. Also their issues/PR descriptions tend to clearly describe the problem and the solution.
4. Any automation of this process leans heavily on the quality of your issue/PR descriptions as garbage-in = garbage-out. Because of this it's tricky to fully automate the process as at some level you usually need a person casting an eye over the release note just to sense check.
+1 for highlighting that PR quality is the bottleneck. Garbage-in/garbage-out is exactly what I ran into and it’s why I’m planning to introduce PR templates so the why/what changed/impact is consistently present. For sparse PR bodies, I also optionally add truncated diff context for the LLM summary so the output isn’t just a long list of raw PR titles.
Also agree there is a split between dev-facing changelogs vs user-facing release comms that need to land where users are. What I built is aimed at the "developer-consumer" audience, people using the library, not contributing to it: it renders into our docs and is meant to be readable as a curated changelog, not a raw list of commits.
I am also planning to add some PR templates so contributors include the context up front, which should make any release note generation more accurate.
Are you using any tooling to help with changelog curration? I know towncrier is all about fragments, so contributors must had write a brief summary of their contribution, which would be more in-line with your preference.
One thing I am trying to do is make the generator surface breaking/migration items explicitly, but I still think anything that requires human judgment (migration steps, caveats) should be hand-curated in a dedicated document like you suggested.
I've never seen an auto-generated set of release notes I liked, a list of PRs doesn't cut it.
If you are willing and interested enough to take a quick look, here is what my script generated for our 2025 changelog (no hand-curation yet, this is the raw output):
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/confident-ai/deepeval/refs...
I am curious: does this still seem too noisy in your opinion, or is it getting closer? And what would you want to see for breaking changes/migrations to make it actually useful?
I now have 2024 & 2025 generated; to fully hand-curate two years of history just wasn’t practical, so I’m trying to get the "80% draft" automatically and then curate over time.
I tried to avoid relying solely on contributors to accurately label or tag things correctly. The script is tag-driven only for release boundaries (version tags), while categorization is derived from PR title & body with optional GitHub metadata. The script is idempotent and preserves edits/omissions so you can correct the few bad ones post-generation.
If you are curious, I am happy to share my script and would be genuinely interested whether it reduces the manual cleanup for your workflow. Also, if you run it with `--ai --github` and a PR body is sparse, it fetches a truncated PR diff and uses that as extra context for the LLM summary.
1. Release notes should never be created mechanically but focus on the consumer of the release.
2. The best changelog is your git. It is OK to generate a calcified changelog for an audience that prefers that.
Last and least:
3. The commit messages are a private space where developers communicate. The messages should never end up at the customer without thorough filtering and distillation.
Apart from that: git-cliff is excellent. If you must generate a document from commits, use that.
Your points are well received and largely why I went PR-based (title/body with optional GitHub metadata) instead of commit-based. A PR title and body tend to be focused on the deliverable, whereas commit messages are narrowly focused on the code change at that moment with developers as the intended audience.
Re: git-cliff, I honestly hadn’t evaluated this one, but it looks solid for commit-driven changelogs. I like the rationale behind conventional commits being parsable and templates enforcing consistency. What constraints pushed you toward git-cliff vs writing release notes by hand, and do you have a config/template you have found works well for surfacing breaking changes?
