Land v0.11's release docs on main, which two stacked PRs never reached - #39
Merged
Merged
Conversation
kernel then found seven defects in it, and two of them are things this page asserts. **The checkpoint.** The page said a forged checkpoint is narrowed by the anchor. It was not: supersession was decided from the union of what the provider returned and what the store's own `anchors` table held, so one INSERT beside the forged checkpoint row bought it, and the hash in that row never had to be a hash. Supersession now comes from the provider alone, and the anchor's `(seq, hash)` must be the pair the checkpoint claims. The paragraph says that, including the half that is still true: anyone who can write receipts can write both rows. **The receipts.** A refused prune and a successful one left byte identical records, and `--older-than` was not among them, so the record of a refusal was worth nothing. The prune now leaves two, a request and its outcome, and the page has a short section saying so. The "verified by" line moves to the tests that actually bind. `T547b` passed throughout the laundering hole, because it writes the checkpoint row and no anchors row beside it; `T550` and `T559` are the ones that fail when supersession is decided locally. `CLAIMS.md`'s line numbers follow the CLI's new lines, and the readiness block is re-measured, not incremented: 6,210 against a checkout with the extras CI installs. Signed-off-by: arpan <contact@arpanghoshal.com>
…the build Exit criteria against what actually ran, not against what the line promised: five released wheels rather than fixtures, the released 0.10.0 from PyPI rather than a store this build wrote and called 0.10.0's, and two prunes racing under the multi-process standard against a real Postgres server. Three sentences are reconciled rather than quietly edited. The anchor does not detect an append, and the bullet said "erased or appended" until today. Coverage does not come from events, because `ACTION_PROPOSED` carries an `action_hash` and nothing that maps it back to a name. And `CONTROL-MAPPING.md` is still not written, which the v0.11 line cited in the present tense. Readiness re-measured, and the version moves to 0.11.0. Signed-off-by: arpan <contact@arpanghoshal.com>
…nscripts `operations.mdx` is the page this milestone most changes and said nothing about either new command. Anchoring and pruning are the two things v0.11 gives an operator to run, and both are runs **their** scheduler makes: nothing sweeps, nothing reaps, and no hold expires, which is the same rule about a timer that `SPEC-v0.9.md` §4 applied to a budget hold. The interval is the claim. An anchor freezes a prefix, so the window you are exposed to is `(last anchored seq, current head]`, and that number is what to quote rather than any sentence about tamper-evidence. Three pages quoted a verify transcript headed `ctrlrun 0.10.0`. The guard that runs verify and compares caught all three. `ROADMAP.md` gains the line about retention shipping twice: the review the build order required for the prune found seven defects, and the merge did not wait for it. `SPEC-v0.11.md` §13.4 has all seven. Readiness re-measured at 6,221 against a checkout carrying the extras CI installs, and `CLAIMS.md` needed no repointing. Signed-off-by: arpan <contact@arpanghoshal.com>
**The docs site described 0.10.0 while PyPI had 0.11.0.** ctrlrun-docs #36 and #37 were stacked on their predecessors rather than on `main`, so merging them landed their commits in `v0.11/3-retention` and `v0.11/3a-retention-review` and `main` never saw them. #28 records the same trap for #26 and #27; it is easy to miss because both PRs go green and both report merged. Three commits were stranded: the retention page after the review found the checkpoint launderable, the ROADMAP marked shipped with its reconciliation block, and the release pass (operations.mdx, three verify transcripts still headed `ctrlrun 0.10.0`, the README allow-list, readiness). Folded in with them, because kernel main already carries ctrlrun#208 and the pages are generated from it: `ARCHITECTURE.md` §6, and the 83 API reference pages plus 38 `CLAIMS.md` citations that moved when `Decision` and `POLICY_UNAPPROVED` went to `decision.py`. Leaving those out would keep the kernel's `docs` job red on `main`. all checks passed (ruff, ruff format, 1727 passed) api 83 pages 0 drifted · cli matches · schemas match · capabilities 0 readiness 0 drifted · cookbook 19 recipes 0 drifted · badges 0 drifted links 192 documents 0 broken · lint 198 documents 0 findings snippets 98 blocks 0 failed Signed-off-by: arpan <contact@arpanghoshal.com>
Contributor
|
Preview deployment for your docs. Learn more about Mintlify Previews.
💡 Tip: Enable Automations to automatically generate PRs for you. |
|
Warning Review limit reachedNext included review available in 34 minutes. View limit detailsLimit details: You’ve used the included review currently available. You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository. Review configuration: ⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Advanced Run ID: ⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (4)
📒 Files selected for processing (19)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
This was referenced Sep 16, 2026
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
1 participant
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.
The docs site describes 0.10.0 while PyPI has 0.11.0. That is live right now, and this closes it.
#36 and #37 were stacked on their predecessors rather than on
main, so merging them landed their commits inv0.11/3-retentionandv0.11/3a-retention-reviewandmainnever saw them. #28 records the same trap for #26 and #27. It is easy to miss because both PRs go green and both reportMERGED.Stranded, and landed here:
mainwas missinge704dd0c6f078fROADMAP.mdmarked shipped, with the reconciliation block for the four sentences that did not survive the build436d869operations.mdx(anchoring and pruning, the two things an operator now schedules), three verify transcripts still headedctrlrun 0.10.0, the README allow-list, readinessFolded in, deliberately
Kernel
mainalready carries ctrlrun#208, and these pages are generated from it, so leaving them out would keep the kernel'sdocsjob red onmain:ARCHITECTURE.md§6, the cycle broken and the rule now a testCLAIMS.mdcitations, which moved whenDecisionandPOLICY_UNAPPROVEDwent todecision.pyThat supersedes #38, which can be closed.
Gate
🤖 Generated with Claude Code