jeffryandClaude Opus 5
544f895920
loom saw it while arranging access to a private cluster repository: then you would have a file from a private repo in your repository, and that does not sound kosher. It is not, and it is a hazard this convention creates by construction. Adopting is copying, so a document from a repository somebody may not read ends up in one they may, and the publisher loses control at the moment of adoption because visibility is governed by the consumer's repository rather than theirs. Nothing in a tree marks a copy as having come from somewhere private — a credential lets you read and does not let you redistribute, and this convention had no way to say so. Two ways out. Reference-only: record the lock, fetch on demand, keep no copy, giving up offline reading which is most of what a copy is for. Or ask them to publish, which is usually right because the thing you needed was almost certainly not the confidential part — a repository that must stay private can have a public sibling that publishes, and the split follows a line that already exists, since the operational tree is what is sensitive and the pages telling somebody what to decide are not. Recorded as a rule rather than a case because the failure is silent and one-way: once copied into a public tree it is published, and no later fix retrieves it. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
externals
How a repository records what it depends on, and finds out when it changes.
- Externals — the convention
Built on bedrock's sibling
facets, whose three open choices we answer in
our usages of annotating.
And annotating is here as an external of ours — fetched, locked, annotated
— which is the convention describing itself using itself. If that had not
worked, the convention would be wrong, and it is the cheapest test available.
The first copy was written by hand. You cannot fetch-and-annotate before the thing that says how exists. Self-hosting is a test, not a derivation.