Parents and children of check-in [d4cf4acf26]
|
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 | |
| 13:45 | land protected-branches check-in: caaa75e5e6 user: dmestas tags: trunk | |
| 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 | |
| 13:37 | Accepted. Clicking through found what testing the parts did not. check-in: 111491a3a9 user: dmestas tags: trunk | |