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

Glossary, the mesh-controller/foundation vocabulary, ADR 0076, Phase 3 closed #43

Merged
jschoubben merged 32 commits from issue/047-the-other-half into main 2026-09-16 21:25:51 +00:00
Conversation 0 Commits 32 Files Changed 39
+13
1 changed files with 13 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
Showing only changes of commit 1e8273eb19 - Show all commits
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. |