docs(blog): publish model pinning post - #55
Merged
TimeToBuildBob merged 1 commit intoSep 8, 2026
Conversation
Git-Session-Id: ec06
Owner
Author
🤖 AI code reviewSafe to merge — no P0/P1 findingsConfidence 5/5 ✅ No findings. The diff looks correct to me on this pass. Reviewed Maintainer commands
|
TimeToBuildBob
deleted the
content/pin-the-model-or-choose-the-upgrade-ec06
branch
September 8, 2026 23:52
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Publishes a post about the operational difference between dated model pins, explicit latest aliases, and ambiguous undated provider IDs.
The post is grounded in the correction on gptme/gptme-cloud#917: the intended current DeepSeek V4 Flash default was the dated
deepseek-v4-flash-0731revision, while the undated ID still identifies the older 0423 model.Verification