The v3.9.3 release notes are very confusing. They link to the closed PR #5731 that has no description and was closed without a merge.

Looking at the rel/3.9 branch, this PR #5732 should be the one linked in the release notes?

Is this a change only for 3.9, or is it also applied to the main branch through a different PR?

@Kissaki Sorry for the confusion. This PR which was merged to rel/3.9 fixes an IOException issue for Retry extension. On main branch (which is 3.10), we went ahead with a bigger change #5717. I updated the release notes.

Normally we merge to main and then backport to not regress changes that go into release branch. In this case we did not merge to main.

We try to not show the backport PRs in changelog and instead show the original author and original PR.

Would it be easier if we listed the original author of the PR, but pointed to the backport PR?

Old:

Simpler fix for dotnet test when using retry by in

new:

Simpler fix for dotnet test when using retry by in

or even:

Simpler fix for dotnet test when using retry by in # (backport PR #)

I like "Simpler fix for dotnet test when using retry by in # (backport PR #)" because the PR refs / types are obvious, and that it's a base and a backport - indicating it's fixed in main too.

I don't think that change alone would have avoided confusion in this case though, where that PR was not merged into main, but a separate change was made?

Even talking about this as a backport seems misleading, when it - if I understood correctly - is a different and independent solution to fix the same issue (because backport is not an option due to scope).