jschoubben
0a5006b366
The machine has reported its host version since ADR 0141, whose own comment says why it must: without it nothing can say a machine is behind. The controller's copy of the report did not have the field, so it unmarshalled into nothing and was thrown away on arrival. Two structs describe one message and only the sending side had it. node show names it per machine, "not reported" where the mesh has not been told. status names every machine running an older host than another does, and which is newest. Disagreement rather than staleness, deliberately: nothing delivers a host version yet, so the mesh holds no canonical current one and "behind" has no fixed point. What it can say is that the oldest host in the mesh is what the mesh may send. Two refusals to guess: a machine that reported nothing is not called behind, and versions compare as strings — right for the timestamps this mesh uses, wrong for a scheme where 10 sorts before 9, said at the place that would have to learn. 107 gains the note that this is what makes its new field safe to consider, and that one machine of four is behind today, so it is not free yet.
3.4 KiB
087 — resolved: the mesh knows which host runs a machine
2026-09-30.
The field existed and was thrown away on arrival
The machine has reported its host version since
ADR 0141 — Host on the report, with
a comment saying why it must be there: "without it nothing can say a machine is behind."
The controller's own copy of the report did not have the field. Two structs describe one message, one on each side of the wire, and only the sending side had it — so it unmarshalled into nothing and the mesh could not answer a question the machine had been answering for a week. That is the whole of this issue's mechanism, and it is worth stating plainly because neither side was wrong on its own.
What it says now
node show names it per machine:
last heard from here
host 2026-09-30-0214
not reported — this machine has not said since the mesh began keeping it where the mesh has not been
told, because a machine that has not said is a different thing from a machine running nothing.
status names the machines that are behind another:
1 machine(s) run an older host than another machine does:
ace 2026-09-29-0113
the newest any machine reports is 2026-09-30-0214. A host refuses a declaration carrying a
field it does not know, whole — so a new field reaches these machines last
Disagreement, not staleness, and that is deliberate
The open questions asked whether the controller should refuse to send a declaration a node cannot parse. It cannot yet, honestly: nothing delivers a host version (ADR 0141 is accepted and not built, which is issue 142), so the mesh holds no canonical current version and "behind" has no fixed point to be behind.
What it can say truthfully is that these machines do not all run the same host, and which is newest of the ones it has been told about. That is the fact that matters before a declaration gains a field: the oldest host in the mesh is what the mesh may send.
Two deliberate refusals to guess:
- A machine that has reported nothing is not called behind. It may be running anything.
node showsays it has not said, per machine, which is the honest form. - Versions compare as strings. That suits the timestamps and commits this mesh uses and is wrong
for a scheme where
10sorts before9. Said in the code at the place that would have to learn, rather than left as a surprise.
The open questions, answered as far as they can be
- Should a node report the version of its host? It already did. The gap was the reading.
- Should the mesh refuse to send a field no node understands yet, or refuse per node and say so? Neither, yet — refusing needs the mesh to know which fields need which version, which is the third question below and is not answered here. What it does is make the disagreement visible before somebody adds a field.
- Is there a general shape — a declaration saying which version of the host it needs? Still open, and now cheaper to answer: the versions are recorded, so a minimum-version field on a declaration has something to compare against. It belongs with issue 107, which wants to add a field and is the first thing this makes safe.