Artifact: Changelog vs. Raw Commit Dump

ex-06 · exercises co-04, co-02 · the same release, read two ways.

A changelog and a git log cover the same underlying history, but they answer different questions -- git log answers "what happened, in order, to the code," a changelog answers "what changed for someone using this project." Conventional Commits (co-02) is what makes deriving one from the other mechanical rather than a rewrite from scratch.

Raw commit log (git log --oneline for the same release range):

9f2a1e3 fix(auth): correct token expiry off-by-one
7c4d8b1 chore: bump ci runner image
4b7e912 feat(auth): add token refresh
2d1a0f6 refactor(auth): extract token store helper
8f3a1c2 docs: fix typo in README

Curated changelog entry, derived from the same five commits:

## [1.5.0] - 2026-07-01
 
### Added
 
- Token refresh support, so a session no longer requires a full re-login when it expires.
 
### Fixed
 
- Corrected a token-expiry calculation that could log a user out one second early.

Verify: the changelog entry contains zero implementation-only commits (chore, refactor, docs all vanish -- they carry no user-facing meaning) and rephrases the two user-facing commits (feat, fix) as outcomes ("no longer requires a full re-login") rather than restating their commit subjects verbatim, satisfying co-04's "reads as intent, not raw history" rule.

Key takeaway: three of the five commits (chore, refactor, docs) are real, valuable history -- and correctly absent from the changelog, because none of them changes what a user of the project can do.

Why It Matters: a changelog that just echoes git log back at the reader (every chore and refactor included) is worse than no changelog at all -- it trains readers to skip it, right when a real breaking change is buried in commit #14. Curating is the entire value proposition; git log already exists and needs no changelog to reproduce it.