Issue 122: the pattern is already on main, in five modules

Asked whether merging the three reviewed changes would set a precedent. It would not: five modules
already carry a name belonging to this one mesh — a workflow module stating its host, protocol and
absolute webhook URL, and two carrying a full clone URL for a repository on the mesh's own forge.

That changes what the issue is for. There is no version of this catalogue today that does not name
the mesh it was written in, so refusing three changes buys nothing and a mechanism is the only thing
that removes any of them. The three were merged on that reading, each PR saying so.

04-ISSUES/122-a-module-cannot-ask-for-its-own-public-name/00-report.md

@@ -24,6 +24,17 @@ the only way to make the software work:
 No reviewer introduced these carelessly: each is the value the software needs, and there is nowhere
 else to put it.
 
+**And they are not the first.** Asked whether merging them would set a precedent, the catalogue
+answered no: **five modules already on the main branch carry one**. The clearest is the workflow
+automation module, whose environment file states its host, its protocol and a full absolute webhook
+URL as literals; two more — the proxy and the builder — carry a complete clone URL for a repository
+on this mesh's own forge, scheme, host and port included.
+
+So the three under review are the visible edge of a pattern the catalogue already follows, which
+changes what this issue is for. It is not a matter of refusing three changes; there is no version of
+this catalogue today that does not name the mesh it was written in, and a mechanism is the only
+thing that removes any of them.
+
 ## What the mesh offers instead, and why none of it answers
 
 A manifest may interpolate `${secret:…}`, `${seat:…}`, `${bound:…}`, `${port:…}` and