jschoubben
9ef9830dcf
ADR 0119 rejected giving the old broker a retirement condition and said why: "its clients are not only the predecessor's, so the retirement condition describes a day that will not come". The operator has said that day is coming — the predecessor is deprecated, some of it still running, none of it being migrated, left to stop rather than moved. Recorded because three documents reason from the premise it overturns. Design 25 §5's "no day anything is waiting for", §9's "the predecessor's clients never notice", and design 28's closing note that the predecessor's world does not need to move. **And it needs no new machinery, which is 0119 being paid off rather than revised.** Because that record made the broker an ordinary provider rather than a compatibility module, ending it is unassigning a provider whose provision nothing requires — something the module system has done since it existed. So step 5.3 finishes instead of trailing off, and the transitional double announcement of a build outcome has a date. The consequence worth planning around: the predecessor's own mesh talks over that broker, so shutting it down ends the tooling that reaches this installation's machines from a workstation. The rollout is driven from the node, or driven before the broker stops. That is a sequencing constraint on 5.2, not an afterthought. What survives is `amqp` as a provision: a module that genuinely needs an AMQP broker can still be given one. What retires is this broker's role as the predecessor's.
03-DESIGN
The authoritative specification. Implementation is built against what is written here.
Two layers
| Folder | What it is |
|---|---|
00-as-is/ |
The mesh that exists today. Shipped behaviour, described as it is — including behaviour nobody would choose again. |
01-to-be/ |
The mesh being built toward. Every statement traceable to a record in 02-DECISIONS/. |
They are never mixed. A statement about the future does not belong in an as-is document, and an as-is document is never edited to describe an intention.
When a to-be design ships, it does not move. Its as-is counterpart is written or updated,
the to-be document's status becomes implemented, and both stand — one describing what runs,
the other recording what was intended. Deleting the intention loses the reasoning, which is
the expensive half.
Frontmatter
Every design document (not the READMEs) carries:
---
layer: as-is | to-be
status: designed | in-progress | implemented | abandoned
code: [] # owning code repo(s), from 00-META/repos.md
updated: YYYY-MM-DD # date of the last status change, not of text edits
decisions: [] # 02-DECISIONS/ records this document rests on
---
For an as-is document, status: implemented is the normal state — it describes something that
runs — and code: names where that implementation lives.
Status changes when implementation state changes, never because design text was edited. An
implemented claim must be defensible from the owning repository's main branch, not from
intent. If it cannot be checked, it is in-progress.
Cross-cutting views are generated from this frontmatter by the hq-status skill and never
written to disk.
What belongs here
Functional analysis, architectural description, and specification — prose and diagrams
only, no code. A manifest field may be named; a manifest may not be pasted. A document
enters the to-be layer only after the decision behind it is recorded in 02-DECISIONS/
and the research that produced it is closed.
Subfolders are encouraged where a layer grows enough to need them.