novox/hq
3
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity

Correct 0075: co-residence is not the exclusivity that matters

Browse Source 
The first draft implied gitea and the registry could not share a machine, because
registry claims the-artifact-store at node scope and I carried that across to
gitea without asking what the claim is for.

A machine running gitea for git and packages alongside a registry serving
artifacts is an ordinary arrangement. They are different ports doing different
jobs, and nothing about one being the mesh's artifact store requires the other
not to exist.

The exclusivity that matters is mesh-wide and already expressed: provides at mesh
scope means two providers are two answers, and the resolver refuses until one is
assigned. Forbidding co-residence adds nothing and forbids something reasonable.

Whether registry should still hold that claim is left open rather than answered
from outside its manifest — it may be protecting something about its port or its
data directory that nobody wrote down.

Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01D6qtiYU3P9jk3pnAXyAFyx
This commit is contained in:
jschoubben
2026-09-15 19:35:05 +02:00
parent 199c2f20bb
commit 1e8273eb19
1 changed files with 13 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
02-DECISIONS/0075-two-stores-and-which-provides-what.md
+13
View File
@@ -50,6 +50,18 @@ which means the pivot has already happened — and the pivot needs somewhere to
**Gitea also provides `artifact-store`, and a mesh may choose it.** Two providers of one provision
is a thing the mesh understands: it refuses, names both, and choosing is assigning the one you want.
**And it does not claim `the-artifact-store`.** That claim is node-scoped, so a module holding it
cannot share a machine with another that does — and a machine running gitea for git and packages
*alongside* a registry serving artifacts is an ordinary arrangement, not a conflict. They are
different ports doing different jobs.
The exclusivity that matters is mesh-wide and is already expressed: `provides` at mesh scope means
two providers are two answers, and the resolver refuses until one is assigned. Forbidding
co-residence adds nothing to that and forbids something reasonable. **Whether `registry` should
still hold that claim is left open here** — it may be protecting something about the port or the
data directory that is not written down, and removing a claim is not a thing to do from the outside
of a manifest.
A mesh that assigns gitea gets authentication and TLS for its artifacts — which is to say, **issues
042 and 048 are answered by choosing a provider that already solved them**, rather than by
reimplementing accounts and certificates in a registry that has none.
@@ -112,5 +124,6 @@ here**: it is named, so the next person does not discover it.
|---|---|
| Genesis needs no database | The installer raises a mesh of one on a machine with nothing, and the artifact store it installs has no store of its own. |
| Two providers are a choice, not a conflict | A mesh holding both is asked to resolve `artifact-store` and refuses, naming both, until one is assigned. |
| Providers may share a machine | A node is assigned both gitea and a registry, and both run — only one of them answers `artifact-store`. |
| The two stores are not interchangeable | A module depending on `package-registry` is not satisfied by `artifact-store`, and the refusal says why. |
| A migration is verified before it is finished | The old provider cannot be unassigned while any machine's declaration still names it. |