Re-home this session's new ADRs (0039-0049) and issues (032-037) onto the consolidated scheme; flip issue 003; port repos.md sdk line + feature-branches playbook (07); regenerate index

Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01LrgweAeERJYBg88c5cKDzF
2026-09-05 12:24:07 +02:00
parent 546caa31c4
commit e269f9a185
22 changed files with 1643 additions and 5 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+---
+status: open
+opened: 2026-09-02
+located-in: []
+fixed-by:
+amended-design:
+---
+
+# 036 — Six modules own what they must share
+
+## The symptom, as observed
+
+Found by review of the catalogue examples (2026-09-02). The media stack is several modules —
+a library server, the acquisition managers, a download client and their satellites — and each
+of them declares the same library and download directories as its own resources.
+
+The resolver refuses two modules that declare one path on one node, with no exemption for
+identical content and no merge. That rule is right in general: two owners of one path is the
+class of fault this repository keeps recording. But sharing those directories on one machine
+is the entire point of this stack — the download client and the managers must see the same
+downloads, the library server must see the same libraries. So the set, as written, refuses
+its own only sensible assignment.
+
+No test co-resolves any two of them, which is why the manifests pass today. The first machine
+to be assigned the stack together is where the refusal would have surfaced.
+
+## Why it matters beyond the instance
+
+The manifests can express *a directory I own* and nothing else, so a directory that is the
+shared workspace of several modules was written six times as six private ones. The intention
+— several modules, one filesystem contract between them — has no vocabulary, and this is not
+a media-stack peculiarity: any pipeline of modules handing files to each other on one machine
+(an ingest directory, a spool, a drop folder) hits the same wall.
+
+It is also a fork in the design the catalogue has otherwise avoided: the fix could be a new
+owning module the others depend on, a shared-resource concept in the manifest, or a statement
+that co-located file handoff is not a thing the mesh supports and these modules are one
+module. Each answer changes what a module *is*, which is why this is an issue and not a patch.
+
+## Open questions
+
+- Is the unit wrong — is a stack that must share a filesystem one module with several
+  containers, the way the mail module already is?
+- If it stays several modules: does one of them own the directories and the rest require
+  them, and is *requiring a directory from a neighbour* a provision, a claim, or a third
+  thing?
+- The duplicate-path rule protects against genuinely rivalrous owners. Whatever expresses
+  sharing must not weaken it for the cases where refusal is the right answer — what
+  distinguishes the two, machine-checkably?
+- The mesh's own rule is that a rule states how it is checked: whichever shape is chosen,
+  what test co-resolves the stack so this class of refusal is caught before a machine is?