Commit Graph
4 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
jschoubben 27c4b765b2 Refuse a declaration for the other mode, or older than the mesh's last, and say what an apply would change first
An operator ran `mesh-host reconcile` on an adopted control-node with twelve
modules assigned. It applied the bundle the host carries — the genesis
declaration, foundation only, converged: recreated the store, failed on the
broker's held port, wrote the converged base filter and started its service,
and stopped at the first failing action. The filter closed the machine for
forty-five minutes. The host reported the node adopted in every report, the
declaration said converged, and nothing compared the two; nothing was printed
before acting (hq issue 104).

The host now records the node's mode — from every declaration the mesh sends,
and at genesis from what the operator said — and refuses, at the point of
application, a declaration that says the other mode, naming both and the act
that changes it. Only a declaration the link delivers, signed, changes the
mode: that is how `converge` and `adopt` arrive, so the flip still works and
nothing else can do it. Genesis marks the bundle consumed, with the digest of
what it applied, so `reconcile` holds a node the mesh has spoken to against
what the mesh last said and never the bundle, and refuses the carried bytes
when they are not what genesis applied. A file is refused when it is not what
the mesh last said: a declaration carries no sequence and no issued-at, so the
host cannot tell older from newer, and says so. Both commands print what they
would change — a hold, a removal, an action named as one — before touching
anything, and --dry-run is that list and nothing more.
2026-09-23 23:15:28 +02:00
jschoubben 5f126021b7 Keep the originals the carried bundle writes over beside the node's state (hq ADR 0100) 2026-09-22 19:53:50 +02:00
jschoubben 121367319d Rename mesh-control -> mesh-controller, substrate -> foundation
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
2026-09-16 18:40:40 +02:00
jschoubben b82ab95f74 mesh-bootstrap: the first-node procedure, as a program rather than a test
The only complete written-down copy of how a mesh is stood up was an integration
test in the lab. That is why every bootstrap gap kept being found late: an install
procedure that lives as a test fixture is exercised by whoever writes tests, never
by whoever installs. This is that procedure.

A separate binary, not a mesh-host subcommand. mesh-host says of itself that it
connects to nothing and listens on nothing and that what it applies comes from a
file, and that sentence is what makes an always-running root daemon auditable. An
installer loads images and interrogates a control plane. Same tier, different
program.

The control plane's image is carried, not built and not fetched. The forge that
holds its source runs on the mesh, so a bootstrap that had to fetch it would need
a mesh in order to raise one. Embedding breaks that cycle the way the carried
bundle breaks "copy it onto a machine and run it". The image id is read out of the
saved tar before the runtime is asked anything, which is what makes the load
idempotent: the installer can ask whether the machine already holds exactly this.

Five steps, each idempotent and each saying whether it found or changed something,
because this is run over and over by somebody getting a machine working. It stops
at a running substrate with a control plane that replies — enrolment, the module
catalogue and assignment are the next stage and are deliberately absent.

Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01LrgweAeERJYBg88c5cKDzF
2026-09-10 23:17:30 +02:00