Skip to content
quarry Check-in [bda97ce3df]
Login

Check-in [bda97ce3df]

Overview
Comment:landings: one write path for remarks again (zit#149)

zit landing comment grew --reply-to, so a parented remark no longer has to detour through forum reply. Both cases go through LandingSay, which means the landing-specific error handling below — conflict and refusal decoding — now covers every remark rather than half of them.

The same-thread check stays. zit refuses an out-of-thread target too, but here it is a capability boundary: quarry does not delegate its permission model to an upstream refusal.

Verified the artifact cards are unchanged: G=root, I=parent, identical to what the forum-reply path produced.

Timelines: family | ancestors | protected-branches
Files: files | file ages | folders
SHA3-256: bda97ce3dfa4997f032b890320b54d61a65f34e9ac13723ec42ac97a13a9e841
User & Date: dmestas on 2026-08-26 15:45:04.742
Other Links: branch diff | manifest | tags
Context
2026-08-26
15:45
landings: one write path for remarks again (zit#149)

zit landing comment grew --reply-to, so a parented remark no longer has to detour through forum reply. Both cases go through LandingSay, which means the landing-specific error handling below — conflict and refusal decoding — now covers every remark rather than half of them.

The same-thread check stays. zit refuses an out-of-thread target too, but here it is a capability boundary: quarry does not delegate its permission model to an upstream refusal.

Verified the artifact cards are unchanged: G=root, I=parent, identical to what the forum-reply path produced. closed check-in: bda97ce3df user: dmestas tags: protected-branches

13:41
RFC 0007: protected branches — ownership enforced where identity is a fact

A check-in joins a protected branch only by an owner's hand; accepting a landing on it follows from that rather than being a second rule. Policy lives in OLTP beside caps, is evaluated at the xfer gate and the accept op, and writes nothing to the repository — fossil compatibility is a normative section, not a hope. The one zit change is drafted in Appendix A. check-in: d4cf4acf26 user: dmestas tags: protected-branches

Changes