The node's own composition gives up every module with a fingerprint of the new form, so such a module is applied only through its
want. The assigner wrote no want while a rule held it back and the node had none, so clipmenu, screen-lock, i3status-rust and every
module requiring x11-display lay on neither list on g14 and shanks: xorg's health is unknown (rule 5) and the canary never ran them
healthy (rule 3), and their files were removed and never made again.
A node that runs a module and has no want for it now gets its first want by the rules without which there is nothing to want (built,
not held, granted, composed); the canary and providers rules order every move after it. Any module still on neither list is raised
as an urgent condition naming module, node and rule, written to the journal, and cleared once it has a want (1945/AC19-AC21).
A hold answered keep on the phone could not be changed: its ask ended with the
answer, nothing listed it, and a kept hold is never lifted by itself. The view
lists every hold with its node, cause and answer (mesh-delivery-cli holds) and
answers the standing hold ask with hold-release or hold-keep through its one
write; the teller takes a later view answer that changes a hold's option into
the answer of that asking, never an older one.
A hold written again after a lift and a restart reused its first ask id, which
the router drops; the hold's time is now its asking. Seven holds could take the
router's three places for the teller and keep a merge Approve from being asked;
the teller keeps at most two assigner asks open. A release or keep answered for
one hold carried over to a later hold of the same fingerprint; an answer now
counts only for the asking its warrant names.
Seven modules stayed held on every machine and the operator was never asked:
the teller only filled assigner asks from the view, a single failed check held
a fingerprint for good, and the held record kept no cause. The teller now asks
every assigner ask as it asks merge asks and writes the phone's answer under
the ask's key; the assigner lifts a hold whose fingerprint runs healthy on
every node that runs the module, says so once and takes its ask back; the held
record names health, phase, when and the node's words.
mesh/delivery-group group fix/r6-node-composition held: a member is held: novox/mesh-sdk@10b6e202320f (merged without a passing check: only a person decides wh…
The assigner reads mesh-controller.builds again (the composer's runningCommits reads the build record of every open
assignment), puts its compose asks on node-build-go and says its conditions on operator-channel.
mesh/check failed: shanks: novox/mesh-delivery#35: modules/mesh-delivery-assigner/go.mod names mesh-sdk 19c1d35939bc, which is neither on mesh-sdk's t…
mesh/check failed: shanks: novox/mesh-delivery#35: modules/mesh-delivery-assigner/go.mod names mesh-sdk bc0c25e51052, which is neither on mesh-sdk's t…
mesh-build-node was unassigned from ace on 2026-10-23 and its ace.typescript key stayed in
mesh-build-node_toolchains at v26.12.0: nothing deletes it, so the indexer, the builder and the
checker took it for a builder and every Node fingerprint said 'builders disagree'. The three now
read mesh-controller_assignments and pass a toolchain report on only while its build module has an
open assignment on its node; builders that run different versions still disagree.
mesh/delivery covered after its stop: a later walk that contains it was delivered: plan-1792840300970624489 (novox/mesh-delivery at 42d880f0 into main, d…
jschoubben