A module does declare requirements the provisioner fulfils — but the broker
it gets that way is a private vhost, the analog of a database, not the
mesh's bus. Two modules of the new mesh depend on it, so the compatibility
broker was never single-purpose and its retirement would have stranded them.
NATS is the heart: one bus, a module's messaging is subjects on it scoped by
what it declares, and no module is handed a server of its own. The seat
delivers nothing; the interface retires with the broker. Also closes the
EVENTS question — one stream, on the bootstrap argument, not preference.
Designs 25 and 28 go in-progress: step 1 is starting.
The insight check caught a false positive on its own first real use — its
bold-run pattern crossed newlines and joined an unrelated `**` to the
marker. Constrained to one line, still catching all four bad shapes.
Both repository checks fail on main. 0115 is cited by no design, and it is
marked accepted while resting on 0112, which is proposed.
Design 27 already states the rule the record decides — "a module is assigned
at most once to a node, and that pair is the assignment's identity" — so it
is the home, and now says so. And 0112, 0113, 0114 and design 27 are all
proposed: the batch is under review, so the record is too. Promoting 0112
instead would be marking a record accepted to satisfy a check, which
check_rests_on names as a failure this repository already made once.
PR #133 landed a different 0115 while this branch was open. The bus record
is now 0116, with every citation in designs 19, 25, 28 and the index
following it.
Note: cycle.py and records.py both fail on main as merged, on that record —
nothing cites it, and it rests on 0112, which is still proposed. Both
pre-date this branch and are left for their own change.
A record can assert a fact that goes stale while the decision it supports
stays right. Superseding for that buries a sound record under a second one
and makes every reader work out which is live. So a correction of fact is
now made in place, marked and dated, with the old wording quoted — bounded
by three conditions and checked by records.py, which fires on an unmarked,
undated or back-dated note. Judgements still supersede.
Applied to 0115: no conformance suite exists to recapture, and the full
genesis bed cannot run until the links exist. Designs 25 and 28 follow.
Counting the surface first changed the plan twice: the genesis bed cannot run
until the links exist, so it belongs to step 4, and there is no conformance
suite to recapture — step 3 builds one against the current bus before moving
it. Both corrections are recorded in the breakdown rather than edited into
ADR 0115. Also indexes design 25, which was never listed.
The NATS change was recorded as one undivided item, which hid three gaps:
a mesh already running had no adoption path, the protocol specification did
not know its transport was being replaced, and nothing was runnable until
everything was. Dividing it is what surfaced them.
125: a hold is not a line in the apply report — sixteen resources held
for an untaken module while four surfaces reported success, and the
operator stopped the edge's predecessor on their word (the route-proxy
flip outage). 126: a changed volume path neither recreates a running
container nor warns, and a roll-out upgrade policy makes a build a
deployment — together they turned a data-path migration into a forge
outage (the /var/lib move). Filed as 119/121 in the novox session
before syncing; renumbered past the other session's 119-124.
Not every host path names this machine. A system file the mesh owns is at that path on every machine
of the kind — the path is the fact. The operator's shared data is already answered as an access. A
path inside a container is the software's contract. What is left, and what a node's default layout
would replace, is 514: a module's own data, and what the mesh writes for that module.
Documents the reservation model as the records already have it — a root per node, one directory per
assignment, a placement for adopted data — and the three things nothing states: where the root comes
from, what sits beneath it, and the order the 514 are retired in.
Stops there deliberately. Changing where a definition looks without moving the data does not fail: the
mesh creates the directory, the container starts, the service comes up empty. Retiring these is a data
migration with a verification step, module by module, and belongs with whoever can see the machine.
A path inside a container is not a fact about the machine — /run/secrets and the directory a server
keeps its data in are the software's own contract, true in any mesh that runs it. Only the host side
of a mount names where it landed.
The first sweep matched path-shaped strings, so it counted both halves of every mount and every
in-container location a value mentioned: 798. Counted by role — directory and file resources, the
host side of mounts, accesses, and the targets of binds, grants, receives and secrets — it is 698
across 70 definitions.
The five modules this report first named were what a first look found. A sweep of all 71: 49 public
domains across 26, the node's own name 58 times across 19, a routable IP 12 times in one, 798
absolute paths across 70 (issue 119's number, grown), and no email addresses at all.
The sharpest case is not a domain: a mail module states the node's public IPv4 as the address it
trusts a real-IP header from, so a node that moves or gains a second address stops attributing mail
correctly, silently. Two upstream resolvers are excluded deliberately — naming a public DNS service
is a policy default, true of any mesh, not a fact about this one.
The object store derives each consumer's bucket from the login the mesh minted, and never reads the
one a definition named. The consumer still has to tell its own software which bucket to use, and has
no way to be told: bound values come from the provider's serves, which is a literal block identical
for every consumer, and a provisioner returns nothing. So all three consumers wrote the answer down
by hand and one of them wrote the predecessor's bucket — a key scoped to one bucket and software
asking for another, which reads like a credential fault and is not one.
Records the general shape: any interface where the provider names the resource forces the consumer to
reproduce the provider's rule, kept in agreement by hand and checked by nothing.
Three wordings disagree, and the confusion is the damage: the glossary defines artifact as an OCI
image while the build vocabulary already names four kinds in use, two of which are not images; the
image registry's seat is named after its job while ADR 0079 names foundation seats after their servers
and ADR 0109 names package seats after their ecosystem; and prose that says 'the module's image' reads
as though a module were an image.
Records the question the naming hides: ADR 0075 keeps two provisions because packages and images are
two protocols, and already allows the forge to provide the artifact store. The second implementation
rests on a bootstrap argument, and the forge has the same upstream-server shape the store and broker
have, which ADR 0078 raises as plumbing and adopts in place.
Step 4 claimed the forge cannot exist as a container before the builder has built its image. The
forge's server is an upstream public image pinned by digest; only its runtime sidecar is built. The
store and the broker have the same shape, and ADR 0078 raises both at genesis as plumbing and adopts
them in place — so the forge can be raised the same way and serve git, packages and OCI before
anything is built.
What survives: a grant is minted by the provider's runtime sidecar, which is built, so the question
is whether raise-service, grant, build-sidecar simply works. Sequencing inside the mesh, not images.
The wrong version came from taking a record's bootstrap argument at face value instead of comparing it
to how the store and broker are raised — one command away in the manifests.
Two things were treated as one. The mesh's own artifact store holds the store seat and is internal by
design — reached by name over the overlay, no accounts, ADR 0082. Serving a registry publicly is a
service the mesh can host: a module with its own name, accounts and storage, like anything else it
runs for somebody. The conversion this report was written beside gave the seat holder a second public
door over the same filesystem, which is neither.
Keeps the original issue whole — no garbage collection, and the settings a routine needs are not
enabled — drops the two-door complication, and sharpens one thing: deletion on the only door is
deletion on a door with no accounts, which the predecessor kept behind its authenticated one.
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.
Three open module changes independently wrote one mesh's names into the catalogue — two literal
public URLs, because the software generates absolute URLs behind a proxy, and one bucket renamed to
match what exists here. None was careless: the mesh composes <label>.<public-domain> for the proxy
and never hands it back to the module that asked for the route, and no interpolation yields a public
name, so writing the answer down is the only expressible option.
Files it rather than blocking the three, because the fix is a mechanism and the instances are live
needs. The cost is stated: a second mesh installing the identity provider gets the first mesh's
hostname, and nothing distinguishes a literal domain from a version number.
Both halves are on their main branches, so the seats stop being an intention. Writes the as-is
document from the controller's code and the catalogue's manifests: the closed set of fourteen, the
three refusals a claim meets, the holder being an assignment and nothing else, and the one place a
seat changes resolution — which of several providers answers, never whether a requirement may go
unanswered.
Two things the as-is layer exists for are stated rather than smoothed over: a seat cannot answer
before it is held, which is the standing condition issue 121 records; and capacity is not
implemented at all, so the design's bench has no counterpart in the code.
Asked first whether the seats change fixed this in passing, since it landed the same day and
touches both manifests the report names. It did not: the seat's holder is consulted only where
several nodes provide the thing, and with none providing it resolution refuses outright. Genesis
has no exemption — the unchecked first pass exists to learn what each node offers, and a
declaration is never built from it.
Records the part that did change: the three tests left failing on purpose were deleted by the
controller's seats PR and replaced with passing seat-based ones, so the gap is invisible again.
Adds the resolver to located-in, since that is where the refusal is.
The seats half of to-be 27's review is settled, so the two records it rests on are accepted and
the vocabulary catches up: the glossary's *seat* becomes a named role from a closed set, held by
an assignment and possibly delivering a provision, and 23 — Choosing a provider gains the seat
step in resolution, with ambiguity still refused rather than guessed. Both were held back when
0110 was proposed, because a document may not rest on a record that is not accepted.
26 — The seats moves to in-progress rather than designed: it names the files that implement it,
and naming a file claims implementation, which is only defensible once those files are on the
owning repositories' main branches. It becomes implemented when mesh-controller #63 and
mesh-catalog #69 land.
0112, 0113 and 0114 stay proposed; to-be 27 stays proposed with them.
Renumbered from 117, which is taken on main by 'a module's own code is a container in one record
and a process in another' — two reports claimed the same number and git would not have said so.
Scrubbed the node's name and a real registry path; this repository is public.
Keeps 118: the other claimant to this number is on main as issue 119, where ADR 0112 points.
Scrubbed the service's public name — this repository is public — and completed the report's
frontmatter with the fixed-by and amended-design keys every other report carries.
jschoubben
jochen