jschoubben
f140303257
Three decisions, all Jochen's, and the first is the one that unlocked it. Exclusivity is not a property of a module. It is a property of a singular resource the module takes over. Two shells compete for nothing and any number may be installed; two display servers both want the seat. So a module declares what it CLAIMS, and two modules claiming the same thing cannot both be assigned within that claim's scope. Not "xorg conflicts with wayland". Pairwise exclusion has a property that only shows up later: adding a third display server means editing xorg and wayland to know about it. Every new module requires changing modules nobody who wrote it owns, and the edits grow as the square of the count. With a claim the third one says what it claims and nothing else changes anywhere. Claims have a scope -- node, site, mesh -- which is not new. The mesh already enforces exactly one hub with a unique index. Scope is that idea said once rather than hard-coded per case. And some conflicts need no claim at all: two modules declaring the same file or binding the same port are visible from what they declare. A claim is only written for the abstract ones. A requirement with several answers is refused, never guessed. One candidate is assigned silently because there was no choice to make; none is refused naming what is missing; several is refused naming them. That is what makes a solver unnecessary -- counting candidates has no surprising behaviour, and a solver can be added later without changing a single manifest. Flavor is retired. It was carrying three unrelated meanings: variants of a thing, a subset of a module a node installs, and whatever the current system does, which earned two knowledge-base entries about going wrong. A word with three meanings cannot be reasoned about. What it reached for is two ordinary things -- different modules providing the same thing, and one module with a setting.
03-DESIGN / 01-to-be
The mesh being built toward. Every statement here traces to a record in
02-DECISIONS/; nothing arrives by drafting.
A document here describes an intention. What currently runs is in
00-as-is/, and the two are never merged — when something ships, the as-is
document is written and this one's status becomes implemented.
| Document | Covers | Rests on |
|---|---|---|
00-work-breakdown.md |
How the decomposition gets built, in what order, and where a human must look | ADR 0001 |
01-end-to-end-testing.md |
The lab: a real mesh a change can be run against before it reaches nodes | ADR 0016, 0029 |
02-scenario-declaration.md |
What a scenario declares — the underlay, and what to place on it | ADR 0016 |
03-scenario-lifecycle.md |
What happens to a scenario — raise, snapshot, restore, move, destroy | ADR 0016 |
04-lab-installation.md |
Getting the lab onto a clean machine, and why it verifies capability rather than installation | ADR 0010 |
05-the-node-host.md |
Tier 0 — the one thing installed by hand, and the only thing that changes a machine | ADR 0005 |
06-the-control-plane.md |
Tier 2 — what the term means, and the test for what belongs in it | ADR 0005 |
07-the-substrate.md |
Tier 1 — what the control plane consumes and cannot grant itself | ADR 0004, 0048 |
08-connectivity.md |
One context in full — overlay, resolution, exposure, filtering, certificates | ADR 0007, 0050, 0051, 0055 |
09-the-node-lifecycle.md |
How a machine becomes a node, stays one, and stops being one | ADR 0004, 0051 |
10-delivery.md |
Modules, the three edges, and how a change becomes a running thing | ADR 0010, 0064, 0065 |
Not yet written
- The remaining six contexts.
ADR 0006
settles the list at seven;
connectivityis the first written in full (08) and the other six do not exist yet. The work breakdown says in what order they are needed. Domain grouping outside the core.Not needed. ADR 0009 is superseded by ADR 0009: there is no domain module to group into, so there is no domain list to settle. Relationships are edges, and grouping is a tag and a query.