jschoubben
333356cff3
Jochen asked whether the order made sense. It did not -- it followed when things happened to be decided, which after consolidation is fictional anyway since record 5 alone folds decisions taken across a week. Concretely wrong before: the domain statement sat at 8, after five engineering rules; the constitution was scattered across 5, 12 and 17; the tiers landed at 15, 16, 21 and 22 with process records in between. Now it walks: what the mesh is (1-3), its tiers from the bottom up (4-8), what runs on them and how it gets there (9-10), how it is built (11-16), how it is checked (17-18), how we work (19-23). Two things made this safe rather than free. It is a permutation, not a compaction, so the renames go through temporary names -- otherwise two files want one slot and one is lost. And the reference rewrite is a single simultaneous pass, because almost every number moved into a slot another number was vacating; replacing one at a time would have cascaded and pointed things at the wrong record while still resolving. Verified: 284 [ADR NNNN](path) links across the repository, all with matching text and target. The ordering principle is now stated in 19 rather than left implicit -- the repository already said "the numbering is the flow" about its folders, and there was no reason for the records to be the exception.
3.7 KiB
status, date, deciders, reconstructed
| status | date | deciders | reconstructed |
|---|---|---|---|
| accepted | 2026-08-26 | jochen | false |
23. The approval is the checkpoint, not the second pair of hands
Context
§2 reads "one change per pull request, and never merge your own", and gives the reason: "self-merging removes the checkpoint that is the entire point."
The rule was written for people. Applied literally to an agent it produces a contradiction that surfaced immediately: an agent asked to merge cannot merge, because it authored what it is being asked to merge. Every merge this repository has seen was therefore either performed by the thing that wrote it, or not performed at all.
Stated by the operator: "you are allowed to self-merge, after I've given you explicit approval."
Considered options
- Read it literally. An agent never merges; the operator merges by hand every time. Rejected: it makes the operator a mechanical step rather than a reviewer, and a step performed dozens of times without reading is not a checkpoint — it is the shape of one, which is worse, because the record then claims a review that did not happen.
- Drop the rule for agents. Rejected: the rule is right, and the failure it prevents — work merged with nobody having looked — is not one an agent is less prone to.
- Require notification and approval, and stop there. Chosen. Who performs the merge is not the thing worth constraining.
Decision
Every merge into the main branch is notified and approved. Stated by the operator in exactly those terms, and the whole of the rule.
Notified: the merge is proposed and said out loud, not performed and mentioned. Approved: a person says yes to that merge. Who then performs it does not matter, which is what makes an agent merging its own work unremarkable — the checkpoint already happened.
What approval is not, because this is the half that can rot:
- A standing permission granted once and cited forever.
- An instruction to do the work, read as approval to merge it.
- Silence.
- The author's own judgement that the work is ready.
Consequences
- The record must show which it was. A merge performed on approval and a merge performed unilaterally look identical afterwards, and the difference is the whole rule. Until the forge can record an approval, the merge commit says so — which is weaker than a recorded review and is stated here rather than left to be discovered.
- Branch protection would make this structural instead of textual. Required approvals turn the rule into something the forge enforces. It cannot be set through the API on the forge version in use, so this remains a rule held by intention — the condition §5 exists to name.
- The one-change-per-pull-request half is untouched, and was broken twice on 2026-08-26. Both breaches are recorded in the pull requests themselves rather than in a conversation.
- This narrows a rule rather than relaxing one. The obligation moves from who performs the merge to whether a person decided, which is a higher bar in the case the original wording actually permits: a reviewer who merges someone else's work without reading it satisfies the old rule and fails this one.
Sync
Run and verified 2026-08-26. §2 in the enforced page now reads never merge unapproved work, confirmed by reading the rule back out of the live page rather than by trusting the publish — the previous sync reported success and changed nothing.
References
how-we-build.md§2 — the rule, now carrying this.- ADR 0010 — the standard a checkpoint is held to: a step that reports success without doing anything is the fault, not the shortcut.