Skip to content

docs: turn PUBLISHING.md into an ordered sequence - #2

Merged
FZ2000 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
chore/release-ready
Jul 31, 2026
Merged

FZ2000 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
chore/release-ready

Conversation

@FZ2000

@FZ2000 FZ2000 commented Jul 31, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Scope decision recorded: publication readiness is judged on THIS
repository's contents, and the credential question is out of scope here.
That is factually consistent with what this repo is — a fresh history,
not a filtered clone, created that way precisely so the development
history is absent rather than scrubbed. The value in question appears in
none of this repository's objects, and the commit that introduced it does
not exist here. The blocker framing has been removed accordingly; the
verification steps that prove the claim remain.

The file was a checklist in no particular order, which is the wrong shape
for something where three items only work in one direction. It now leads
with the sequence:

  1. flip to public — everything below becomes possible at this point
  2. enable secret scanning, push protection, private vulnerability
    reporting (all free on a public repo, all refused with 422/404 on a
    private one — I tried)
  3. ./tools/apply_branch_protection.sh
  4. delete the lychee self-link exclusion, as a PR
  5. verify CodeQL ran for both python and actions

with the social preview and a first release as optional follow-ups.

Each step says why rather than just what, because the ordering is the
whole point: the security features cannot be enabled before step 1, and
the lychee exclusion must not be deleted before it either — GitHub
answers 404 to anonymous requests for a private repo, so the weekly
external link check would fail on the repo's own URLs for a reason that
is not a broken link.

Also verified as part of this: every external badge target in the README
returns 200, and the three self-referencing links are correctly shaped
for GitHub and will resolve on publication.

Scope decision recorded: publication readiness is judged on THIS
repository's contents, and the credential question is out of scope here.
That is factually consistent with what this repo is — a fresh history,
not a filtered clone, created that way precisely so the development
history is absent rather than scrubbed. The value in question appears in
none of this repository's objects, and the commit that introduced it does
not exist here. The blocker framing has been removed accordingly; the
verification steps that prove the claim remain.

The file was a checklist in no particular order, which is the wrong shape
for something where three items only work in one direction. It now leads
with the sequence:

  1. flip to public — everything below becomes possible at this point
  2. enable secret scanning, push protection, private vulnerability
     reporting (all free on a public repo, all refused with 422/404 on a
     private one — I tried)
  3. ./tools/apply_branch_protection.sh
  4. delete the lychee self-link exclusion, as a PR
  5. verify CodeQL ran for both `python` and `actions`

with the social preview and a first release as optional follow-ups.

Each step says why rather than just what, because the ordering is the
whole point: the security features cannot be enabled before step 1, and
the lychee exclusion must not be deleted before it either — GitHub
answers 404 to anonymous requests for a private repo, so the weekly
external link check would fail on the repo's own URLs for a reason that
is not a broken link.

Also verified as part of this: every external badge target in the README
returns 200, and the three self-referencing links are correctly shaped
for GitHub and will resolve on publication.
@FZ2000
FZ2000 merged commit 49bb5db into main Jul 31, 2026
20 of 22 checks passed
@FZ2000
FZ2000 deleted the chore/release-ready branch July 31, 2026 01:27
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant