novox/hq
3
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests 1 Releases Wiki Activity

Renumber the records 1 to 23

Browse Source 
The consolidation left a sparse sequence -- 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18,
19, 25, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 42, 44, 45, 48, 49, 58 -- where the gaps were only
the archaeology of what used to be there.

Renumbered contiguously. Renames run in ascending order, so every target number
is already free and no two files ever collide.

The reference rewrite is one simultaneous pass rather than a sequence of
replacements. Numbers moved into slots other numbers were vacating -- the node
host went 37 to 16 while the lab went 16 to 9 -- so replacing one at a time
would have cascaded and silently pointed things at the wrong record.

Seven plain-text references survived the merges as prose rather than links,
naming records that no longer existed: the enrolment token, the link boundary,
what a declaration is, reachability, the repository structure. Each mapped to
the consolidated record that now holds it.

Verified rather than assumed: every [ADR NNNN](path) link now has matching text
and target, checked across the whole repository, and the checker passes.

Frontmatter `consolidates:` lists dropped -- they named records that are gone,
and each consolidated record already says in prose what it absorbed.
This commit is contained in:
jschoubben
2026-08-28 23:28:34 +02:00
parent 77f3a4cea7
commit e1febe8e0f
84 changed files with 441 additions and 449 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
01-RESEARCH/011-the-module-graph/00-overview.md
+16 -16
View File
@@ -2,14 +2,14 @@
status: graduated
initiated: 2026-08-25
became:
- 02-DECISIONS/0044-modules-and-the-graph.md
- 02-DECISIONS/0045-a-context-owns-its-store.md
- 02-DECISIONS/0019-modules-and-the-graph.md
- 02-DECISIONS/0020-a-context-owns-its-store.md
- 03-DESIGN/01-to-be/06-the-control-plane.md
- 03-DESIGN/01-to-be/07-the-substrate.md
touches:
- 02-DECISIONS/0044-modules-and-the-graph.md
- 02-DECISIONS/0044-modules-and-the-graph.md
- 02-DECISIONS/0036-a-node-and-how-it-joins.md
- 02-DECISIONS/0019-modules-and-the-graph.md
- 02-DECISIONS/0019-modules-and-the-graph.md
- 02-DECISIONS/0015-a-node-and-how-it-joins.md
- 03-DESIGN/00-as-is/02-modules-and-manifests.md
- 03-DESIGN/00-as-is/10-module-catalogue.md
- 04-ISSUES/007-an-installed-package-is-not-a-capability/00-report.md
@@ -21,9 +21,9 @@ touches:
> *instantiation*, and both are **runtime** edges — they answer *what does this need in order to
> run*. Delivery needs a different question answered — *what has to be rebuilt when this changes*
> — and that is a **build** edge, fixed inside an artifact rather than negotiated when it runs.
> Recorded by [ADR 0044](../../02-DECISIONS/0044-modules-and-the-graph.md), which also
> Recorded by [ADR 0019](../../02-DECISIONS/0019-modules-and-the-graph.md), which also
> notes what this effort's three entities turn out to be good for
> ([ADR 0044](../../02-DECISIONS/0044-modules-and-the-graph.md)).
> ([ADR 0019](../../02-DECISIONS/0019-modules-and-the-graph.md)).
## What is being investigated
@@ -76,10 +76,10 @@ concluded — `provider:` is a dependency edge that is not read as one, which ma
for a working mesh come out without a database; and the resolver continues past a cycle and
past a missing dependency, contrary to ADR 0008.
[ADR 0044](../../02-DECISIONS/0044-modules-and-the-graph.md) proposes
[ADR 0019](../../02-DECISIONS/0019-modules-and-the-graph.md) proposes
grouping modules by domain. [Research 005](../005-domain-grouping/analysis.md) measured that
proposal and found its evidence holds in exactly one place — reachability — which
[ADR 0037](../../02-DECISIONS/0037-the-node-host.md) has since absorbed
[ADR 0016](../../02-DECISIONS/0016-the-node-host.md) has since absorbed
into the host. The measured case for domain grouping has therefore been consumed by a decision
taken for unrelated reasons, and what remains is fifty modules that co-change with nothing.
@@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ and abandoned in favour of one concept with facets, for a reason worth keeping:
Filing decisions that follow from nothing are the disease research 005 measured. A second
taxonomy would reproduce it.
So [ADR 0044](../../02-DECISIONS/0044-modules-and-the-graph.md) survives, and the question
So [ADR 0019](../../02-DECISIONS/0019-modules-and-the-graph.md) survives, and the question
becomes what a module must be able to **declare**.
## The shape being investigated
@@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ Five declarations, of which two exist today.
| Declaration | Today | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| **requires a resource** — a database, a bucket | yes | provisioning, [ADR 0044](../../02-DECISIONS/0044-modules-and-the-graph.md) |
| **requires a resource** — a database, a bucket | yes | provisioning, [ADR 0019](../../02-DECISIONS/0019-modules-and-the-graph.md) |
| **provides a resource** | yes | as above |
| **requires another module** | **no** | the dependency edge — the graph's substance |
| **excludes another module** | **no** | installing A makes B unavailable |
@@ -174,12 +174,12 @@ Struck-through rows are answered, with where. The rest are live.
| ~~What does the graph **delete**?~~ | For the existing system: nothing, it is already there ([`analysis.md`](analysis.md)). For the design: the module/resource distinction, the interface as a kind of thing, capability checking as a separate mechanism, domain grouping, and — the first clear deletion — **grant kinds**, once a module may only be granted what it exclusively owns ([`worked-provider.md`](worked-provider.md)). |
| ~~Is an interface a module, or a name?~~ | A **name**, and only where providers are genuinely substitutable. The adapter is what creates one; without an adapter there is a **tag**, which describes and does not bind ([`proposal.md`](proposal.md)). |
| ~~Where do domain modules fit?~~ | They do not. There is core infrastructure — concrete modules named individually, not flavourable, nothing standing in front of them. |
| ~~What happens to domain grouping?~~ | Superseded. Folders assert relationships; edges record them. What grouping was for is a tag and a query. [ADR 0044](../../02-DECISIONS/0044-modules-and-the-graph.md) is `proposed` and should be superseded rather than narrowed. |
| ~~What happens to domain grouping?~~ | Superseded. Folders assert relationships; edges record them. What grouping was for is a tag and a query. [ADR 0019](../../02-DECISIONS/0019-modules-and-the-graph.md) is `proposed` and should be superseded rather than narrowed. |
| ~~Is there one kind of edge?~~ | **No — two.** *Presence*, where a thing must exist, and *instantiation*, where a provider makes something for a consumer and hands back credentials. Instantiation implies presence, not the reverse. |
| ~~When two modules provide one name, who chooses?~~ | Neither the consumer naming a node nor the consumer not caring. The consumer declares the **scope of its own need** — shared across its instances, or one each — the mesh binds, and the binding is written down and sticky. Where it is written follows the scope. |
| ~~Can several modules share one database?~~ | **No.** A module is granted only what it exclusively owns — no shared writes and no read role on another's store, because reading couples you to its layout just as firmly. |
| ~~What about a dashboard reading a dozen stores?~~ | **The rule is about contexts, not processes.** The mesh's own board reading the mesh's own store is the mesh showing its own data — not a boundary crossing. Everything inside a context reads its store freely; what is forbidden is a *different* context reading it. An earlier answer here was wrong. |
| ~~Can every registry consumer be served another way?~~ | **Largely dissolves.** Of eighteen direct consumers, the owner keeps its database, node appliers are already stopped by ADR 0037, and the bulk are **foreign tenants** — thirteen tables across three contexts — who need to move out rather than read differently. |
| ~~Can every registry consumer be served another way?~~ | **Largely dissolves.** Of eighteen direct consumers, the owner keeps its database, node appliers are already stopped by ADR 0016, and the bulk are **foreign tenants** — thirteen tables across three contexts — who need to move out rather than read differently. |
### Live
@@ -190,10 +190,10 @@ Struck-through rows are answered, with where. The rest are live.
| What does a provider hand back? | Credentials and an address for a store; a command for a terminal. Same relation, different shape crossing it. |
| Is provisioning one mechanism or two? | The mesh's own registry is provisioned **before there is a mesh**, so provisioning is part of the bootstrap and part of what the carried bundle expresses. At bootstrap the store is local; afterwards it is on another node. Same operation, both sides of a tier boundary. |
| Is a tool surface one relation with two audiences, or two? | 56 of 126 modules carry tools — more than carry a service — and what consumes them is an **agent**, not a module. |
| ~~Do the remaining cross-context reads want an interface or events?~~ | **Derived, not chosen.** Neither is SQL — that only ever runs against your own store. ADR 0036 makes disconnection ordinary, so anything that must work while disconnected cannot use a request and needs a local copy: a subscription. Anything where a stale answer is worse than none cannot use a subscription. |
| ~~Do the remaining cross-context reads want an interface or events?~~ | **Derived, not chosen.** Neither is SQL — that only ever runs against your own store. ADR 0015 makes disconnection ordinary, so anything that must work while disconnected cannot use a request and needs a local copy: a subscription. Anything where a stale answer is worse than none cannot use a subscription. |
| What does a consumer do about events it missed while disconnected? | Replay from a point, ask once for a full picture and resume, or rebuild. The question every projection has, and unanswered here. |
| What happens to a grant when its consumer is removed? | Dropping is data loss; keeping is a leak. ADR 0043's removal rule does not obviously carry, because the thing lives inside another module's state. |
| Is a declaration composed per node, from what that node reported? | Some configuration follows the hardware. Either the host fills a blank — deciding, against ADR 0037 — or the control plane composes from the node's inventory first. |
| What happens to a grant when its consumer is removed? | Dropping is data loss; keeping is a leak. ADR 0016's removal rule does not obviously carry, because the thing lives inside another module's state. |
| Is a declaration composed per node, from what that node reported? | Some configuration follows the hardware. Either the host fills a blank — deciding, against ADR 0016 — or the control plane composes from the node's inventory first. |
| Would `excludes` and capability requirements actually be used? | Zero manifests declare either, which is equally consistent with *nobody needs them* and *nobody can express them*. |
| What does an exclusion mean for something already installed? | Refuse the install, or surface the conflict and let it be decided. |
| Are tiers a view of the graph, or a constraint on it? | If a tier is a computed level the word is a convenience. If *a tier may depend only on tiers below it* is to be enforced, it is a constraint and must be stated as one. |