Re-take the bundle document against what the build writes now - #213
Merged
iderex merged 1 commit intoAug 28, 2026
Merged
Conversation
Six of the outputs pasted into docs/serving-the-bundle.md on 2026-08-16 no longer reproduce, and the largest of them tells an operator the wrong thing about what they downloaded. The archive listing named seven files; the build writes twenty-two, so the install page, the design system page, the icon and twelve plugin pages were missing from the list somebody checks their unpacked bundle against. The invariant rows read 4 and 7 files and read 18 and 22, the reproduce leg read 7 files and reads 22, the two pack digests have moved, the not-found page has gained a reference, and the sitemap has gained fourteen entries. What prevents the same drift where it can be prevented: the two outputs that were enumerations are replaced by the command and a count, which is the repair the threat model already took for a hand count. A list of one entry per page goes stale on the day the next page lands and nothing reddens, so this document hands the reader the command instead of the answer. The rest are numbers and are re-taken with the date they were taken on. The three pastes that still reproduce are left alone: the bill of materials excerpt, the not-found file location and the empty release listing were re-run and are unmoved. The last section says plainly that nothing in this tree holds this document to the output it describes, so a reader knows the figures are somebody's readings rather than something a run keeps honest. Signed-off-by: Nils Lehnen <30603423+iderex@users.noreply.github.com>
iderex
deleted the
documentation/the-bundle-document-is-re-taken-with-the-sign-off
branch
August 28, 2026 12:51
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What was wrong
docs/serving-the-bundle.mdis the document an operator follows to serve thissite, and six of the outputs pasted into it on 2026-08-16 no longer reproduce.
The one that costs the most is the archive listing: it names seven files, and
the build writes twenty-two.
Run 2026-08-28 against
2a1e214. So somebody checking their unpacked bundleagainst that list finds fifteen files it does not mention - the install page,
the design system page, the icon and twelve plugin pages - and has no way to
tell a wrong download from a stale document.
The other five, each with what it said and what it says now:
the document had 4 and 7.
the document had 7.
the document had
9bc535d9...twice.the document had five references on the not-found page and three sitemap
entries. All run 2026-08-28.
What this does
Re-takes every one of the six, and stops two of them from drifting again.
The archive listing and the address listing were enumerations, and an
enumeration of one entry per page goes stale on the day the next page lands
while nothing turns red. Both are replaced by the command and a count, which is
the repair
docs/threat-model.mdalready took for a hand count: the reader ishanded the command instead of the answer. The remaining four are numbers rather
than lists, so they are re-taken and carry the date they were taken on.
Three pastes in the same document still reproduce and are left untouched, so
this diff is the defect and not a sweep: the bill of materials excerpt, the
not-found file location, and the empty release listing were each re-run today
and are unmoved.
The last section now says plainly that nothing in this tree holds this document
to the output it describes. That is what let the six go stale, and a reader who
does not know it reads the figures as something a run keeps honest.
Closes
Nothing. #54 stays open: two of its three done-when clauses start from a
published archive and there is no release, which is #53. The clause this
document does meet is the one asking that it document the not-found mapping and
the verification steps, and this change is a repair to the document behind that
clause rather than movement on the other two.
Both run 2026-08-28. The release listing returns nothing.
What was run
needs-networkwas not asked for and no result is claimed for it. The one rulethe invariants leg reports as owed and not decided is
image-dimensions-match-the-file, which is #85 and is unrelated to this change.All run 2026-08-28. No test was skipped, and nothing here needed a display or
an elevation.
The means
Markdown prose in
docs/, which is what this document already is and what thefive files beside it are. It adds no language, no runtime and no dependency,
and the formatter that judges it is the one already pinned in
pins.json.The three rules cut against this means honestly and it is worth saying so. A
document carries no refusable property: nothing in this tree compares these
figures against the output, which is why they went stale and why the change
says so in the document rather than claiming a guard. What the means does carry
is the third rule - every figure above is beside the command that produced it,
run at the tree being pushed - and that is the whole of what stands behind this
file. A means that could refuse the drift would be a leg comparing the document
against a build, and that is a check to argue for on its own rather than
something to bury in a repair.
This replaces #212, which carried the same bytes without a sign-off
The first branch for this change was pushed without a
Signed-off-by:trailer,and the DCO check reds every non-merge commit that carries none:
Run 2026-08-28. A trailer cannot be added to a commit that is already pushed
without rewriting it, so the correction is pushed under a new name and the old
branch is abandoned rather than force-pushed. The content is the same bytes,
which is not asserted but compared:
Both run 2026-08-28. #212 is closed with the reason in its body.
Who read it
Nobody but me. This board has no second reader tonight, the ruleset requires no
approving review, and this pull request is merged by whoever opened it. The
evidence above stands in place of one.