dellemc.os10

Cut a release to Galaxy. This is the heaviest single rule in the rubric because a release is the one unambiguous, publisher-controlled act of maintenance we can observe without reading your repository — which is also its limitation, and worth saying plainly: a collection under active development that rarely releases is under-credited here, and that is a gap in what we can see rather than a judgement about the work. If your collection is finished rather than abandoned, there is nothing here you should change on our account.

Declare a `requires_ansible` FLOOR in your `galaxy.yml` naming the oldest ansible-core you actually support, and declare an upper bound alongside it if you test against one — the bound is credited on top of whichever floor tier you reach in the table beside this rule. Declaring nothing now scores zero and STAYS in your score rather than dropping out of it, so omitting the field is no longer a way to avoid the question; if your score fell and you have never declared a floor, this is why. An exact pin or a `~=` compatible-release specifier earns only a small share, strictly below every floor tier: it is a real declaration we could read, so it beats silence, and it sits at the bottom because pinning ansible-core is the practice this category exists to discourage. Raising a floor you cannot actually support would be a false declaration, and this rule is not worth that.

Give every collection dependency you declare in `galaxy.yml` an upper or pinned bound — `<`, `<=`, `==` or `~=` — so that installing your collection cannot silently pull in an arbitrary future release of somebody else’s. If your collection declares no dependencies at all this rule already awards full marks and there is nothing here to change. If we reported a dependency we could not read, the fix is the syntax of its version range rather than the dependency itself.

Like the Trust tenure rule, this reads the `ansible` package’s own release data rather than anything you declare, so no metadata edit moves it. What moves it is your collection continuing to be carried by a current `ansible` package major, which is the community inclusion process. If your collection has never shipped in that package we do not observe this rule at all and it is left out of your score rather than counted against you, so this is only worth acting on if you are already in the package and have slipped behind.

Declare a machine-readable SPDX identifier in `galaxy.yml`’s `license` field rather than relying on a `LICENSE` file alone: an identifier is what a consuming organisation’s policy tooling reads without a human opening the file. A `LICENSES/` directory following REUSE ranks above a bare root licence file and below the identifier. One exception worth stating: we record the identifier you publish rather than validating it against the SPDX list, so a wrong identifier will earn these marks and mislead your users at the same time — if no SPDX identifier fits your licence, publish the file instead.

Write a fragment into `changelogs/fragments/` as each change lands, rather than composing release notes at release time. This reads the same published file as the Quality changelog rule, so shipping and maintaining a changelog answers both at once — if a page told you twice to ship a changelog it would be describing one missing file as two problems. One thing this rule does NOT ask for: an empty fragments directory is not the goal, and cutting a release clears your fragments by design. A maintained changelog with nothing pending still earns partial credit here, so releasing your work does not cost you this rule.

Publish your CI configuration inside the artifact. `.github/workflows/` is what we count most precisely, and other CI config files earn partial credit when your automation runs somewhere we cannot enumerate as exactly. `build_ignore` commonly strips `.github/`, again on the packaging documentation’s own advice, so an absence here is a gap in what we could read rather than a statement that your collection has no CI. In this scoring version this rule can only add points: an unobserved CI signal leaves your calculation rather than scoring zero, so this is worth doing for the credit and never to avoid a deduction.

Publish your test evidence inside the artifact: `molecule/` scenarios for a role collection, and `tests/unit/`, `tests/integration/` and `tests/sanity/` for a plugin collection. Ansible’s own packaging documentation suggests excluding `tests/` through `build_ignore`, so if you follow that advice we simply cannot see them — their absence from your tarball is a limit on what we read and never a claim that you have no tests. In this scoring version this rule can only add points: when we observe no test evidence the rule leaves your calculation entirely rather than scoring zero, so publishing tests can raise your score and withholding them cannot lower it.