The mesh's own images declare theirs now, so the refusal ADR 0097 deferred is live.
The builder's own image and the examples take arguments with defaults; make builds
them, not the mesh.
One name per thing, per the HQ glossary: the module/container/image/binary/repo
becomes mesh-controller, the seat the-controller, and the store+broker pair the
foundation (embedded base bundles, default template and example lock renamed with
their go:embed directives). No behaviour change — a pure vocabulary rename.
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01D6qtiYU3P9jk3pnAXyAFyx
The language and the bundle ordering went into ADR 0006, where the substrate
and the control plane already live, and the store-per-context mechanics into
0008, which already decided the rule. Nothing changed but where the reasoning
is kept.
Tier 2 exists now. It holds one context of seven, inventory, and does one
thing with it: brings its schema up to date. That is step 3 of the substrate
bootstrap -- the step the first node cannot get past.
Verified against a real PostgreSQL, with the built binary: applied 0001-nodes,
reported 'already up to date' on the second run, and the node table is there
with the index and the unique constraint the migration asks for.
Written in Go, and the image is FROM scratch holding one file. Confirmed by
unpacking it. That is the whole argument of ADR 0024: the bundle pins this
image by digest and runs it where nothing can check it, so everything in it is
something a person has to audit before trusting a first node.
Exclusive store ownership is built as a rule about credentials rather than
about intentions. There is no mesh-wide connection setting and no way to ask
for one -- a context reads MESH_STORE_<ITS OWN NAME> and holds nothing else, so
reaching another context's store needs a new variable, which is visible in the
declaration that runs it.
The migration runner is mostly refusals: an edited migration that already ran,
a migration numbered below one that has run, duplicate numbers, misnamed files,
empty files. All stop rather than warn, because at the moment any of them is
true nobody knows what the database holds.
It stops before identity, deliberately. What a node presents to prove who it is
has not been decided anywhere, and a migration is the most expensive place in
this system to guess.
Two tests did not defend what they claimed, and both are fixed rather than
removed. One asked only whether Open returned an error, which it did either way
-- a bad context name and a missing credential both fail, so deleting the name
check changed nothing. The other claimed to prove the migration runs in a
transaction, but PostgreSQL already wraps a multi-statement query in one of its
own, so it passed with the transaction taken out. What the transaction actually
buys is that the schema change and the row recording it commit together, and
there is now a test for that which fails when they are split.
jschoubben