teleo/teleo-infrastructure

Fork 0

Commit graph

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
m3taversal	fa6cceb9cd	docs(external-contrib): v2 — sweep-only Phase 1 (Ship Msg 2 simplification) Phase 1 simplified per Ship's architectural review: - Drop the one-shot backfill script — the self-healing sweep IS the backfill. First cron tick post-deploy picks up FwazB PR 4066 automatically via the same SELECT/UPDATE path that handles all future races. - Specify sweep placement as Step 0: runs as the very first action after initial Forgejo+GitHub fetch, ahead of branch-mirror loop AND auto-create-PR block (line ~250). Same-cycle convergence on fresh-cycle races. - Replace `.fork-pr-map` design with branch-name-encoded sweep — branch name carries the GitHub PR number deterministically (gh-pr-{N}/...), no API call required, no map file, no flag plumbing. Phase 1 final scope: ~10-line sweep block in sync-mirror.sh, idempotent, zero-cost when clean. Phase 2 architecture unchanged. Ship's open questions for Phase 2 (backout flag, rebase-after-fix scope, merge commit message format) remain open. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-04-28 12:57:35 +01:00
m3taversal	e6206766dd	docs(external-contrib): merge flow design — Option 2 with gh-pr-* scoping Two-bug analysis (cherry-pick breaks GitHub merge badge + sync-mirror's head=living-ip filter misses fork PRs leaving prs.github_pr NULL). Empirical verification baked in: PR #87 vs #90 contrast (own-repo merge-no-ff worked end-to-end, fork PR cherry-pick failed both bugs). 10/10 historical Forgejo merge commits propagated to GitHub with identical SHAs — answers Ship's added-scope concern with production data, not theory. Phased implementation: - Phase 1: sync-mirror github_pr backfill via .fork-pr-map (Bug #2, ~30 lines) - Phase 2: _merge_no_ff_external for gh-pr-* branches (Bug #1, ~120 lines) - Phase 3: FwazB PR #90 cleanup (Cory-approved option b) Discovered scope shrink during drafting: existing fixer is already append-only (verified against PR 4066 branch state). No fixer module changes needed — cherry-pick at merge time was the only thing rewriting SHAs. merge --no-ff preserves the existing fix-on-top-of-contributor-commit topology. Open questions for Ship: 1. Backout flag (EXTERNAL_PR_NO_FF_MERGE) overkill or prudent? 2. .fork-pr-map location (bare repo vs /opt/teleo-eval/state/) 3. Phase 1+2 separate deploys or single branch? 4. Rebase-after-fix structured-alert scope vs documented-silent-ignore 5. Merge commit message format Awaiting Ship's architecture sign-off before any code. Ganymede gets line-level once design lands. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-04-28 12:37:42 +01:00

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

m3taversal

fa6cceb9cd

docs(external-contrib): v2 — sweep-only Phase 1 (Ship Msg 2 simplification)

Phase 1 simplified per Ship's architectural review:
- Drop the one-shot backfill script — the self-healing sweep IS the backfill.
  First cron tick post-deploy picks up FwazB PR 4066 automatically via the
  same SELECT/UPDATE path that handles all future races.
- Specify sweep placement as Step 0: runs as the very first action after
  initial Forgejo+GitHub fetch, ahead of branch-mirror loop AND auto-create-PR
  block (line ~250). Same-cycle convergence on fresh-cycle races.
- Replace `.fork-pr-map` design with branch-name-encoded sweep — branch name
  carries the GitHub PR number deterministically (gh-pr-{N}/...), no API
  call required, no map file, no flag plumbing.

Phase 1 final scope: ~10-line sweep block in sync-mirror.sh, idempotent,
zero-cost when clean.

Phase 2 architecture unchanged. Ship's open questions for Phase 2 (backout
flag, rebase-after-fix scope, merge commit message format) remain open.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

2026-04-28 12:57:35 +01:00

m3taversal

e6206766dd

docs(external-contrib): merge flow design — Option 2 with gh-pr-* scoping

Two-bug analysis (cherry-pick breaks GitHub merge badge + sync-mirror's
head=living-ip filter misses fork PRs leaving prs.github_pr NULL).

Empirical verification baked in: PR #87 vs #90 contrast (own-repo merge-no-ff
worked end-to-end, fork PR cherry-pick failed both bugs). 10/10 historical
Forgejo merge commits propagated to GitHub with identical SHAs — answers Ship's
added-scope concern with production data, not theory.

Phased implementation:
- Phase 1: sync-mirror github_pr backfill via .fork-pr-map (Bug #2, ~30 lines)
- Phase 2: _merge_no_ff_external for gh-pr-* branches (Bug #1, ~120 lines)
- Phase 3: FwazB PR #90 cleanup (Cory-approved option b)

Discovered scope shrink during drafting: existing fixer is already append-only
(verified against PR 4066 branch state). No fixer module changes needed —
cherry-pick at merge time was the only thing rewriting SHAs. merge --no-ff
preserves the existing fix-on-top-of-contributor-commit topology.

Open questions for Ship:
1. Backout flag (EXTERNAL_PR_NO_FF_MERGE) overkill or prudent?
2. .fork-pr-map location (bare repo vs /opt/teleo-eval/state/)
3. Phase 1+2 separate deploys or single branch?
4. Rebase-after-fix structured-alert scope vs documented-silent-ignore
5. Merge commit message format

Awaiting Ship's architecture sign-off before any code. Ganymede gets line-level
once design lands.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

2026-04-28 12:37:42 +01:00

2 commits