jeffryandClaude Opus 5
e0d7afecae
Writes the first real gaps: what an adopter could not tell from the documents, recorded while the misunderstandings are fresh rather than after they stop being visible. cart — whether a response is an annotation or a reply in your own file, and the discriminator that resolves it appearing nowhere; what to do when an open item has no fallback, which breaks the mechanism rather than omitting a nicety; what a third file means once one exists; and what must be extracted before converting, now that v1 makes conversion destroy. annotating — how a reader detects the freeze was violated, since the hash we check is a local invention; that responding means a rewrite, which is named only in our local protocol; and that under cart v1 a prompt's answer has no archive at all. recording-decisions — the one that matters most: never revised and somebody must be able to read it both hold and eventually conflict, and the document does not say which gives. Provisional answer recorded, with the line compaction may not cross — never drop a decline, a measurement, a falsified belief, or a supersession, because those are the record of somebody changing their mind. publication — whether publishing implies the audience can read it, and where confidentiality lives given that what is safe to publish depends on who can read the repository it sits in. Also declines reference-only adoption with its reason: it is adoption minus reconciliation-by-diff, not adoption minus offline reading, and the convention's other exit is the one that actually occurred. The warning now names both exits including the unbuilt one. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018UTxuSizozEA8yDitPuris
1.4 KiB
Gaps — publication
Whether publishing implies that the audience can read it
The document says publishing is a change of kind and that .loom/published/ is
what a repository has handed over for others to depend on. It does not say that
the handing over must succeed.
We built a command on the assumption that it meant anyone could fetch it, and
that was wrong — others is not everyone, and a repository may publish to a
private audience deliberately. But the opposite is not addressed either:
nothing here says that a document in published/ which nobody in its intended
audience can fetch has not been published.
The sentence we needed is in a sibling and not here: publishing is not an act you can complete alone. It appears as an aside about a tool, not as a property of publication.
Local answer: we declined to build the check, on the belief that a registry with named consumers answers it better than a probe can. The convention still does not say whether an unfetchable publication is a publication.
Where confidentiality lives
externals now says confidentiality does not travel with the copy. That rule
is about adopting, and it exists because of a property of publishing — what a
publisher may safely put in published/ depends on who can read the repository it
is in, and this document, which is where publishing is defined, does not
mention visibility at all.