Skip to content

Map repository paths to canonical documentation areas #2676

Open

Description

@codeforester

Problem

The accepted Base governance design and implementation plan identify package 11a as a required deliverable. This issue translates that package into a reviewed, bounded issue/PR train; it does not authorize implementation before the issue reaches Ready.

Expected behavior

Define a reviewed path-to-area map using the canonical inventory from package 10. The map links implementation/test/config paths to the design, contract, user, reference, operational, decision and release documents they may affect. Keep mapping rules explainable and allow explicit no-impact evidence; do not infer semantic coverage from filename similarity alone.

Scope and non-goals

Scope: Define a reviewed path-to-area map using the canonical inventory from package 10. The map links implementation/test/config paths to the design, contract, user, reference, operational, decision and release documents they may affect. Keep mapping rules explainable and allow explicit no-impact evidence; do not infer semantic coverage from filename similarity alone.

Non-goals: Do not silently expand scope, activate unreviewed policy, mirror issue fields onto PRs, grant agents merge/release authority, or make changes outside the named affected areas. Any new product decision or materially new work gets a separate issue and decision record.

Affected areas

Impact and evidence

  1. Product intent: Implements only the accepted governance design and plan; any product-requirement change must be filed separately.
  2. Architecture and contracts: Destination is the package-specific section of the merged governance design/implementation plan plus the affected canonical contract named above.
  3. User guidance: The issue identifies likely guidance paths; the implementation PR must name updated user/FAQ/README paths or give a change-specific reason why none is affected.
  4. CLI/API and reference: The affected-area list determines whether CLI/API/reference docs change; the implementation PR must cite the exact reference path or justify no impact.
  5. Operations and safety: No privileged automation or merge authority is implied; the PR must list operational/security effects and any rollback.
  6. Validation and testing: The issue lists the planned tests; the PR must report executed validation and explain any unavailable test.
  7. Examples and downstream use: The implementation PR must identify affected examples/consumers or give evidence that this change has no downstream surface.
  8. Governance and contributor process: This package changes or preserves the contributor/governance contract as described in Scope; links must point to the canonical rules.
  9. Decision records: No new decision is accepted by this issue; any durable deviation requires a proposed decision record and explicit maintainer acceptance.
  10. Release notes: The PR must include a user-facing release-note line or a reasoned none; this issue does not pre-decide that disposition.

These are issue-stage dispositions to refine during Triage. Before Ready, every category must have its exact destination or evidence-based no-impact reason; the PR repeats the ten-category evidence for actual changes.

Open questions

  • None known. If implementation exposes an unresolved contract, return this issue to Triage and record the decision before implementation continues.

Plan

  • S1: One focused PR for this issue. Use Fixes #N only if no additional slice is needed; if the maintainer approves multiple PRs, name each S1…Sn here before the first is opened and use Part of #N.
  • Dependencies: the P10 issue
  • Acceptance criteria:
  • Every in-scope path is assigned to an owned area or explicitly excluded with a reason.
  • Map changes are reviewable and versioned; unknown paths warn rather than silently pass.
  • The map identifies canonical destinations and creates no duplicate ownership catalog.
  • A representative sample confirms useful mappings and documents known blind spots.
  • Validation:
  • Add fixture tests for representative paths, unknown paths, exclusions and renamed files.
  • Check all mapped destinations exist and links resolve.
  • Run docs contract checks and git diff --check.
  • Risks and rollback: A coarse map may miss changed behavior; warnings must request human impact classification and cannot assert semantic alignment.
  • Decision impact: No decision is accepted merely by implementing the issue. Record the relevant accepted decision/ADR and file a superseding record if the maintainer approves a change.

Activity

  1. self-assigned this
    on Nov 10, 2026
  2. added this to the v1.11.0 milestone on Nov 11, 2026
  3. codeforester commented on Nov 11, 2026

    @codeforester
    CollaboratorAuthor

    Pre-Triage review against the accepted plan (#2664, tracker #2665)

    1. Area vocabulary. Build the map from the existing Area vocabulary: the defaults in project_model.py plus the areas in each repo's .github/base-project.yml. Design L381 and §15.1 rule out a new catalog.
    2. Open question. Where does the map file live? That is an open question for this issue, not "none".

    Dependencies text. Replace the P10 issue with #2675. The native blocked-by links are already correct; the body is what a reviewer reads.

    Contract text. The Impact, Scope and Open questions sections are still the shared template text. The Impact section is identical in 24 of #2666–#2690, and Scope repeats Expected behavior. That's fine in Backlog. Before Ready, replace each with this issue's own dispositions.

    Claude Code (Opus 5.5), reviewing from Ramesh's account at his request. This review comes before Triage, so it is not an issue-loop round.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

documentationDocumentation improvements

Type

Projects

  • Status
    Backlog

Milestone

Relationships

None yet

Development

No branches or pull requests

Issue actions