Date two overtaken readings in the decisions that carry them - #137
Merged
Conversation
The "What a person does by hand" section of decisions/release-procedure.md led with running the publication, said nothing schedules it, and sent a reader to #32 as the place where a schedule and a run that cannot race itself were still being decided. Both halves have been overtaken. I found it by re-running the commands the issue carries against origin/main at 1f88020: publish.yml declares a daily cron, a request trigger and a concurrency group naming the destination, and #32 closed on 2026-08-20. That section is the one somebody opens to find out what is left to them, and it is read before the steps rather than after them, so a stale entry there tells a reader to start the run by hand and to expect that nothing has run otherwise. The entry now says what is left at that step now that the run has a route: the run pushes nothing and its checkout goes with the runner, so what a person does is read its verdict, ask for a run when a release lands between the scheduled ones, and produce the bytes the next entry's request carries. The sentence that stood there is rewritten as superseded rather than deleted, which is the shape decisions/plugin-identity.md already uses. Signed-off-by: Nils Lehnen <30603423+iderex@users.noreply.github.com>
decisions/manifest-address.md quoted a grep that found no printed install address and exited 1, and it read the printing of the address as a question the instruction in #55 would answer. Neither reproduces. This is the file that argues why a reading is recorded with the command that produced it, so a stale quotation inside it is read as current by anybody who opens it for the rule. I found it by re-running that grep at origin/main 1f88020, where it prints five sites across README.md and docs/index.html and exits 0, and by reading #55 and #34, both closed. The 2026-08-08 pair is kept rather than deleted, because it is the pair that decided the rule asks for a request instead of a DNS lookup, and the file already says so. What changes is that it is now named as a reading from that date and the reading that holds is beside it, and the two sentences pointing forward to the instruction say it is written. Signed-off-by: Nils Lehnen <30603423+iderex@users.noreply.github.com>
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.
Closes #130. Closes #136.
Two decision files each carry a sentence a later change overtook, and both sit in
the register that argues for recording a reading with the command that produced
it. Neither correction is a deletion. The superseded sentence is rewritten as
superseded, which is the shape
decisions/plugin-identity.mdalready uses andthe shape both issues ask for.
Why one request carries two issues
Both land only prose under
decisions/, and they touch different files, so arequest each would move the mainline under the other and buy no reader anything.
The means
Markdown prose in
decisions/, one file per decision, present tense. That iswhat every file in that directory already is, it adds no language, no runtime and
no dependency, and it keeps the correction in the same place as the rule it is
about, where somebody reading the rule will meet it.
#130: the hand step the publication stopped being
What
maincarries:Both halves of that are overtaken. The workflow declares its own runs and a group
that stops one racing itself:
At the head of this branch the file states neither, and the one place it still
names #32 says the answer and the date:
The entry has content after the correction rather than disappearing. What is left
by hand at that step is reading the run's verdict, asking for a run when a release
lands between the scheduled ones, and producing the bytes the next entry's request
carries, because that workflow has read-only permissions, none of its three steps
pushes, and its checkout goes with the runner.
#136: the grep that stopped reproducing
The quotation in
decisions/manifest-address.mdno longer reproduces:Run 2026-08-23 against the tree at
1f88020, which ismainas this branch leftit. The 2026-08-08 pair is kept, because it is the pair that decided the rule asks
for a request rather than a DNS lookup and the file already says so. It is now
named as a reading from that date, with the reading that holds beside it.
The forward pointer is gone as well. The instruction it pointed at is written and
both issues behind it are closed:
What this change does not do
It adds no guard, so there is no refusal to plant and none is claimed. It touches
no Go, no workflow and nothing under
docs/, so nothing about what the treerefuses moves:
decisions/release-procedure.mdalso says under what a release is refused forthat the quickstart cannot be written before an address is recorded as answering.
That sentence is a condition on ordering rather than a claim that the quickstart
is unwritten, so it is left alone here and is not part of either issue's
done-condition.
The gate
Run at the content of this branch's head. The harness did not run and its three
requirements were not asked for, which the same run prints; no leg above depends
on any of them.
Who has read this
Nobody but me. There is no second reader on this change, and the commands above
stand in place of one rather than a claim that somebody checked them.