jschoubben
e1febe8e0f
The consolidation left a sparse sequence -- 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 25, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 42, 44, 45, 48, 49, 58 -- where the gaps were only the archaeology of what used to be there. Renumbered contiguously. Renames run in ascending order, so every target number is already free and no two files ever collide. The reference rewrite is one simultaneous pass rather than a sequence of replacements. Numbers moved into slots other numbers were vacating -- the node host went 37 to 16 while the lab went 16 to 9 -- so replacing one at a time would have cascaded and silently pointed things at the wrong record. Seven plain-text references survived the merges as prose rather than links, naming records that no longer existed: the enrolment token, the link boundary, what a declaration is, reachability, the repository structure. Each mapped to the consolidated record that now holds it. Verified rather than assumed: every [ADR NNNN](path) link now has matching text and target, checked across the whole repository, and the checker passes. Frontmatter `consolidates:` lists dropped -- they named records that are gone, and each consolidated record already says in prose what it absorbed.
78 lines
3.7 KiB
Markdown
78 lines
3.7 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
status: accepted
|
|
date: 2026-08-26
|
|
deciders: jochen
|
|
reconstructed: false
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 18. The approval is the checkpoint, not the second pair of hands
|
|
|
|
## Context
|
|
|
|
[§2](../00-META/how-we-build.md) 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
|
|
|
|
1. **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.
|
|
2. **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.
|
|
3. **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](../00-META/how-we-build.md) 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`](../00-META/how-we-build.md) §2 — the rule, now carrying this.
|
|
- [ADR 0023](0023-delivery.md) — the standard a checkpoint is held to: a
|
|
step that reports success without doing anything is the fault, not the shortcut.
|