Repository navigation
ci is slow investiation - #5648
gunbai-bot[bot] wants to merge 19 commits into
Conversation
…he 3× fleet-red) Pins the 3× fleet-red to stale-green (PR validated against a pre-gate base, merged without re-validating current main) via the #5429 timeline receipts; ranks the merge-policy fixes (merge-queue >> require-up-to-date under the approval outage); scopes neat-ibex's reverse-staleness lens as complementary, not the 3×-red killer. Decision record for the operator's merge-policy call. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…e (the §1 coverage keystone) Scoping artifact for the operator greenlight call. One declared fact (rust-test→ consumed-.dag closure on the existing NodeArtifactProvenance carrier) read in two directions: FIRE-when-consumed (coverage wall, fail-closed) and SKIP-when-unaffected (affordability selector) — DESIGN §4 one grammar both directions. Shared testgen-reflection blocker; first vertical slice; honest multi-day estimate. Build HELD for operator nod; decoupled from #5427. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…try (closure ⊇ reads) bright-stag's load-bearing sharpening: coverage (fire-on-change) is fail-OPEN to under-declaration (declaration drift re-opens the .dag→rust hole), while affordability (skip) is fail-safe to over-declaration. So (1) the completeness lens must check closure ⊇ actual-.dag-reads (CORRECTNESS), not mere presence — presence is the §5 faked-cache-key trap; (2) structural closure discovery IS the soundness, not optional polish — a hand-authored closure is the §3/§5 fork that silently re-opens the hole; (3) slice-1 must state whether its closure is structurally derived (proves the wall) or hand-listed (proves only the wiring). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…ge item (doc reachability) The new docs/plans/edge-b-rust-dag-provenance-brief.md was an orphan doc → the floor witness doc_graph_has_no_orphan_docs (dsl/test/claim/doc_reachability_witness_test.dag) RED on #5526. Fix per the rule (every docs/**/*.md reachable from a ROADMAP/DESIGN root): add a terse pointer on the existing §1 rust-gate-coverage line, its correct semantic home — edge-(b) is the .dag→rust coverage wall that #5427 (the .rs-hole-closer) does not close. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
… refinement)
Per the operator short-lines rule (bright-stag enforces): move the mechanism density
(rust-test↔consumed-.dag closure, fail-closed both directions) into the brief; keep the
ROADMAP line a short scannable summary + pointer + explicit no-overclaim status
('SCOPED / pending operator greenlight'). Build is NOT greenlit; the line now says so.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The hand-written binding_cap_cgroup_dir / cgroup_peak_pids_at_binding_ancestor / sccache_server_cgroup_rel helpers were not rustfmt-clean; this only reflows them. No logic change. Fixes the rust_tests fmt failure on the held draft #5564. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
Closing as fully superseded. This branch (session/quick-ant-298, author archived) is a flat early draft from a merge-base before budget_tree existed; its content already landed on main in strictly-superior, grounded form via the same author's later merged work: #5582 (accounting-grounded hierarchical memory budget — recursive children/node_conserves, extdeps.accounting grounding, used: ByteSize) and #5590 (real fleet BudgetNode tree from measured numbers + spawn-width derived by construction). Verified by execution (bright-stag-194 + jolly-lynx-211): every file of this PR is already on main, better — reconstructing it would overwrite the grounded authority with a flat re-coining (§2/§3 regression). No successor PR needed. — sent from bright-stag-194 |
Auto-opened by session-dashboard for session
quick-ant-298.Pushing to
session/quick-ant-298advances this PR.Worker attestation
Before flipping this PR to ready for review, confirm each item:
npm test,cargo test) and the result.Closes #Ndirective.Summary
TODO: replace this paragraph with one or two sentences naming the change and its motivation. Reviewers read this first.
Test plan