Bases reach a recipe as build arguments, so the digest was never in the file the builder read
edges from: no build on the mesh recorded what it stood on, and 'build --on', the bases-first
order and the merge follow-up all walked a graph with no edges (novox/hq 04-ISSUES/131). The
builder now reports every base it resolved; the controller records them by artifact path and
reads the newest build's edges from the store, since a recorded manifest carries no build.on.
Its event queue is durable, so a running catalogue misses nothing. What it cannot
have is what was announced before it first ran — and on a fresh mesh that is never
arbitrary: the shared base, the store the catalogue runs on, and the catalogue
itself are each necessarily built BEFORE a catalogue exists to hear about them.
The graph's foundation is the part it never sees.
So it says it is catching up, and the control plane re-announces what it
recorded, oldest first, marked as a replay. Oldest first because a graph is built
in the order things happened: registering a module that stands on a base before
the base would point an edge at a version nothing has seen, and the shape of a
fresh mesh guarantees the base is both first and the one that was missed.
The replayer hands announcements back rather than publishing them, because the
wire belongs to the link package and a replay building its own events could drift
from what the builder emits — the one thing it must match exactly, since the
catalogue has a single handler for both.
Its own queue and its own consumer: two consumers on one queue split its
messages, and a catch-up request going to whichever half was not listening is a
gap that looks like a working mesh.
Toward novox/hq 04-ISSUES/050.
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01D6qtiYU3P9jk3pnAXyAFyx
The builder announces a build with the resolved manifest, the path inside the
repository, and every artifact it stood on. The control plane received all of it
and kept none of it.
That was survivable while the catalogue heard the same announcement directly. It
stops being survivable the moment the catalogue was not there to hear it — which
on a fresh mesh is always, and always for the same modules: the shared base, the
store the catalogue runs on, and the catalogue itself are each necessarily built
BEFORE the catalogue exists to hear about them. The graph's foundation is the
part the graph never sees.
Replaying those builds needs what they said, not a summary. Without the manifest
there are no requires/provides edges; without `against` there are no build edges,
which are the ones that answer "a base moved, what must be rebuilt". A replay
carrying neither would restore the module list and leave the question the
catalogue exists for still wrong, while looking fixed.
Kept null rather than empty where a build predates this, so a replay can say it
is holding nothing instead of inventing an empty declaration for a module that
certainly had one. And `built_against`, not `built_on`: that column exists and
means the machine, which is a different fact about a different subject.
Toward novox/hq 04-ISSUES/050.
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01D6qtiYU3P9jk3pnAXyAFyx
A fingerprint written into a recipe names one particular copy of the base — the
copy on whichever machine the person typing it was using. On any other mesh that
copy has never existed, so the build stops on its first line with a message
about an image nobody can look up. Three modules in the catalogue were in
exactly that state, and the line each of them replaced was equally dead.
A module now names the module and artifact instead, and the mesh answers with
what it holds. The builder is still a thing that clones, builds and answers: the
answer travels with the question, because only the mesh knows what it has.
A base the mesh has not built is refused before anything is built, naming which
module has to exist first.
A build result was answered to whoever asked and kept nowhere. So "when
did this last build", "why did it fail" and "which machine built what is
running" had no answer, and a build nobody was waiting for was reported
into the void — which is the same as not reporting it.
Failures are recorded too, and that is the point rather than a detail: a
failed build that leaves no trace is indistinguishable from one nobody
asked for, and the difference is the whole of whether somebody should be
looking at something. A build that never learned what it was building
keeps the repository, because that is what a person goes and looks at.
Recording is idempotent on the correlation id, because a result can
arrive twice — as the answer to whoever asked, and on the exchange when
nobody was. Two rows would show one build as two, and which is real is
not answerable afterwards.
The serving control plane now binds `built` as well, so results from
builds it did not ask for are kept. It refuses them loudly when it has
nowhere to put them rather than dropping them, so the broker's own
counters show something arriving that nothing handles.
`builds [<module>]` reads it: what happened lately across the mesh, or
what has happened to one module — the first asked after something goes
wrong, the second when deciding whether to trust something.
What was published is kept with the build, so a digest traces back to
what made it without holding the manifest twice in a place that can
disagree with the first.
jschoubben