Parents and children of check-in [18e5fa7bbb]
|
2026-08-05
| ||
| 22:40 |
citations: repair six section renumberings the errata left behind
Six cited sections do not exist in the drafts at all, so no line range could ever have been right. Each was renumbered, and each successor is confirmed by subject match against the section's own text: §B.4 -> §B Appendix B flattened; cookie-card, url-login-value, pct-user, unreserved and pct-encoded all still exist, every citation exactly 1787 lines above its production §12.1 -> §11.1 Credential Replay §12.2 -> §11.2 Private-Content Exposure and Protected Transport §10.3 -> §9.3 Configuration Exchange -- "the server MUST require Admin; otherwise emit error not authorized to push" §10.4 -> §9.4 Commit-Lock Pragmas -- every site is ci-lock/ci-unlock §9.1.1 -> §8.5.1 Unversioned-File Synchronisation -- "status 3+MTIME-CMP (2 older, 3 identical, 4 newer)" The §B citations carry corrected line numbers, each asserted to land on the production its comment names. The rest carry the section only: once the section is right the stale range is an ordinary "outside" case, which the re-key pass already handles, and inventing a range here would be the clamping this work exists to prevent. Deliberately untouched, all needing a decision rather than a lookup: §12.3 (successor §11.3 states the OPPOSITE -- "This protocol defines no separate per-line byte limit before LF" -- while four tests assert a 65535-byte bound as an RFC requirement), §3.10 (removed; the comment reasons about the section's own existence), and §E (a reference to storage-track-plan.md wearing §-notation, which the issue forbids). not-a-section 36 to 6. Baseline 144 to 135. test 3495/3495, fmt. Issue #18. check-in: d4e0e0d6da user: dmestas tags: sub-manifest | |
| 22:19 |
citations: re-key 368 in the sync pair; cover appendices
Of 475 candidates, 368 were located by reading the draft text that supports what each comment claims and survived adversarial review; 23 were refuted and 84 returned unresolved. sync.zig and sync_test.zig now resolve at 86 percent, up from 39. The refusals are the useful part. Several proposals verified byte-for-byte and still pointed at the wrong sentence; one range truncated away the half that carried the claim; one cited text that REFUTES its comment. The unresolved are mostly mis-sectioned rather than mis-lined -- §9.1 cited for push/pull card grammar, §10.1 for the client-version pragma -- and one where an erratum inverted the claim, so the COMMENT is now wrong and no line range would fix it. Those are left for a section decision. The checker also could not see `§A.1`-style citations at all: 36 of them, unverified while looking checked, 25 of them broken. Appendix headers use `Appendix A. Title` and `A.1. Title`, so both forms are recognised now. Baseline 477 to 144, over a population that grew 781 to 817. test 3495/3495, fmt. Issue #18. check-in: 18e5fa7bbb user: dmestas tags: sub-manifest | |
| 21:55 |
citations: re-section four claims from §4.1 to sync §7.7
All four assert that the artifact hash names the uncompressed, fully reconstructed bytes, and cited §4.1 for it. No §4.1 in any of the five drafts says that -- §4.1 defines the container. The statement is sync §7.7 L1465, "Integrity hashes reconstructed artifact bytes, not wire payload." These were the ones the re-key pass returned unresolved rather than guessing at: wrong section, not drifted lines, so no line range would have been right. Naming the draft because §7.7 also exists in artifact-format. Baseline 481 to 477. test 3495/3495, fmt. Issue #18. check-in: f1e10128f8 user: dmestas tags: sub-manifest | |