Accordion Laravel Package

Product Decisions This Supports

• Build vs. buy (reaffirm, not reopen): v1.0.1 is a maintenance patch — a config-file naming fix (sb- prefix) — with no new capability, no API surface change, and no deprecations. It does not change the build-vs-buy calculus; treat it as evidence the package is actively maintained rather than as a reason to revisit the decision.
• Adoption/onboarding experience: Config publish correctness is an onboarding concern, not just an engineering one. A wrong config filename or publish tag translates directly into broken quickstart docs, failed vendor:publish steps, and first-run support tickets. Accepting this patch reduces first-install friction for every new team or tenant we onboard.
• Roadmap sequencing: No roadmap item should be created for this release. The only roadmap-adjacent action is a routine dependency bump slotted into the next maintenance window, not a feature slot.
• Documentation and enablement scope: If our internal runbooks or integration guides reference the old config filename/tag, this release is the trigger to correct them. That is a docs ticket, not an engineering epic.
• Versioning/pinning policy: A 1.0.x patch that only fixes config naming is exactly the class of release a caret constraint should absorb. Use it as a reference case when deciding whether to pin or float this package in composer.json.
• Use cases unlocked or affected: Teams who publish and commit vendor config, multi-tenant or multi-environment installs where config filenames are referenced in deploy scripts, and anyone provisioning the package via automated scaffolding — those are the groups that actually feel this fix.
• Support/risk posture: Low. The realistic failure mode is not runtime breakage but drift between a config file already published under the old name and the package's expectations post-upgrade.

When to Consider This Package

Adopt when:

• You are on Laravel and the need is config-driven and bounded — the package's behaviour is steered by a published config file rather than deep application code.
• You want the standard Laravel package ergonomics (vendor:publish, tagged config, convention-over-configuration) so onboarding is a documented, repeatable step rather than bespoke wiring.
• You can absorb patch-level updates on a normal cadence and have somewhere to record config-affecting changes.
• You value a visible maintenance signal: shipping a naming fix as a patch shows the maintainer is watching the install path, which is where most integrations actually fail.

Look elsewhere or pause when:

• You have already published config under the previous filename. The patch fixes the package's naming, but it will not silently migrate a config file already committed in your repo. If the old name is load-bearing in deploy scripts or environment bootstrapping, you need a deliberate rename, not a composer update.
• You require per-request or runtime configuration rather than a single published config file — that is a different architectural shape.
• The sb- prefix collides with an existing config namespace in your application, or you maintain many Laravel packages and depend on predictable, collision-free config keys.
• You need strict stability guarantees and read a config-naming change in a 1.0.x patch as a signal that config conventions are still settling. That is a yellow flag worth noting, not a red one — but for a platform-level dependency, worth confirming the published config path in a staging install before rolling wide.
• Your integration is greenfield and you were already following the new naming — in which case this release simply makes the docs true and requires nothing from you.

PM gate before merge: confirm whether any environment currently has the pre-fix config published, and confirm the published config filename is asserted somewhere (a smoke test or install check) so the next naming change is caught by CI rather than by a customer.

How to Pitch It (Stakeholders)

For executives (one paragraph): This is a routine maintenance release for a Laravel package we depend on — a one-line correction to the name of the package's configuration file. There are no new features, no breaking changes, and no deprecations. Its practical value is that new installs and our onboarding documentation now line up with reality, which reduces setup friction and first-run support load. The recommended action is a standard dependency bump with no product work attached. It is also a useful health signal: the maintainer is shipping small correctness fixes promptly, which is what we want from a dependency we are not building ourselves.

For engineering (the ask):

• Bump to 1.0.1 in the next maintenance window; no feature branch, no migration plan needed at the application layer.
• Verify the published config filename and publish tag in a clean environment and in staging — specifically whether any existing environment still carries a config file under the old name.
• If the old filename is referenced in deploy scripts, Dockerfiles, scaffolding, or CI setup steps, rename deliberately and update those references in the same change.
• Update integration docs and any internal runbook that quotes the vendor:publish command or the config path.
• Add or extend an install smoke test that asserts the published config filename, so future config-naming changes fail in CI instead of in a customer's first hour.

Framing to avoid: don't present this as a feature or a fix to something customers reported. It is hygiene — cheap to take, mildly costly to skip, and its absence shows up later as confusing onboarding docs.