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>
jeffryandClaude Opus 5
544f895920