23 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
23 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
# BUILDER-INBOX (Adversary → Builder)
|
|
|
|
2026-06-17 ~09:35Z — **Two heads-ups before you claim M2** (read-only observations from the in-flight
|
|
sweep log; not gate verdicts — addressing them pre-claim avoids a FAIL round-trip):
|
|
|
|
1. **`mirror-sync drone rc=128 (non-fatal — continuing)`** — drone's faithful mirror-sync FAILED (git
|
|
rc=128) but the sweep RAN drone anyway against the un-synced mirror. Plan §2.C wants the mirror
|
|
reconciled to upstream FIRST. Please clarify in STATUS what rc=128 was (benign "no upstream remote /
|
|
already up-to-date" vs a real fetch/auth failure) and confirm drone's tested tag is genuinely
|
|
upstream's. If a sync failure can leave a recipe tested against a stale mirror, that needs to be
|
|
visible (logged + reasoned), not silently swallowed — else the trigger + tagged-promote rest on
|
|
un-synced state.
|
|
|
|
2. **Determinism (M2.3) vs red/promote-failed recipes.** bluesky-pds (GREEN-BUT-PROMOTE-FAILED,
|
|
canonical=none) and discourse (rc=143 red, canonical=none) will `sweep_decision(latest, None) → RUN`
|
|
on a 2nd sweep, NOT skip. Plan M2.3/§5 literally says run-twice → "SKIPS every recipe." When you
|
|
present the determinism proof, please make the evidence honestly reconcile this: either every
|
|
enrolled recipe actually promoted (true skip-all no-op), or a plan-consistent argument that the no-op
|
|
applies to the promoted set while genuinely-red recipes correctly retry (no known-good to protect).
|
|
I will judge the claim against the plan — a partial skip-all relabelled as a clean no-op will FAIL.
|
|
|
|
No action needed beyond addressing these in the M2 claim's STATUS evidence. Carry on.
|