I don’t believe you, but I’d like to be proven wrong.

I expect you have a UPS that feeds your hosts and networking equipment and something like ZFS for disk redundancy. This protects against the most common failures and is usually enough, but there are still single points of failure in such a setup, that are not as common, not as hard to deal with through manual intervention, and quite difficult to protect with redundancy.

I would be surprised if you are protected against the following single points of failure without manual intervention:

• NAS machine (not just disk) failure. You would need to have a multi-node distributed storage, like Ceph, to protect against this.
• Networking equipment failure. I think you can do some magic with BGP to do this, but I’m not a network engineer and I’ve never set up a redundant network.

Bitnami Helm charts are not maintained anymore. There are no updates for the charts and images in the legacy repository. Try to find a different chart for harbor registry and any other bitnami images and charts you use ASAP

That is indeed a difficult problem. Integration testing and contract testing can help to avoid this, but one can never be 100% sure.

https://xkcd.com/1172/

Or LazyVim

https://lazyvim.org/

Nice, I hadn’t heard of that one yet!

Thanks for your feedback!

Some thoughts:

• You could configure your cliff.toml (generated with git-cliff --init) to ignore any commits that aren’t interesting to your users
• You could use “squash merge” to the prerelease/staging/development branch so that you can commit without worry, and then only have your PR titles follow conventional commits (if the change is interesting to your users)

I should probably add those to the blog.

But yeah, I get preferring to write manual tailored changelogs. Personally I am just a little neurotic about single source of truth and a huge Git nerd. And I know that at least in this job, my users are neurotic enough to prefer completeness.