Repository navigation
build(dist): export-ignore Issue #32 raw results from package archives (Ref #60, #37) - #62
Conversation
Technical Lead — Complete Independent PR #62 Review — CHANGES REQUIRED (2026-10-21)Pinned: Base Verified CI: run 39646174513 on the exact HEAD has 10/10 jobs completed SUCCESS, including MySQL Integration 8.2/8.5, Lowest dependencies, Quality, Unit/Regression 8.2–8.5, Workflow lint and CI Gate. Executor also supplies actual external GitHub/Composer ZIP measurements on this SHA: 9,806,666 B / 1,183 files baseline → 607,793 B / 247 files candidate; change in file set reconciles arithmetically to 937 excluded results + 1 new Verdict: CHANGES REQUIRED / NO MERGE GO. Packaging rule, preservation and measurements are consistent with the approved design; I found two wording defects, to be fixed together once on the existing Draft PR, without changing F62-01 — inaccurate claim in all five newly added distribution notesEach note says: “Relative F62-02 — existing contradictory package-distribution description in touched README
Consolidated remediation / acceptance
#61's separate documentation corrections are already in progress independently; neither workstream requires waiting for the other. No Tag/Release authorized. |
…p wording (F62-01, F62-02) (#60) Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5.5 <[email protected]>
Technical Lead — Fresh Full Re-Review #2 of the entire cumulative PR #62 (2026-10-21)Exact review boundary: Base Exact-head GitHub CI: run 39647707280 completed 10/10 SUCCESS: Workflow lint, Quality, Lowest dependencies, four Unit/Regression PHP minors (8.2–8.5), two MySQL 8.4.10 Integration jobs (8.2/8.5), and CI Gate. Executor-reported actual final GitHub zipball is 608,262 bytes / 247 files, baseline 9,806,666 bytes / 1,183 files, precisely the 937 raw result files absent and the root attributes file present. Executed checks/ZIP metrics are from the executor; I independently checked GitHub source, tree/CI, diff and consistency, not a fresh binary ZIP download or local test rerun. Prior F62-01/F62-02: addressed — relative historical-result web links are distinguished from absent dist files, and the study README no longer falsely says the entire study is not in the distributed package. Verdict: CHANGES REQUIRED / NO MERGE GO, for one remaining release-facing accuracy defect in the changed note, verified across all 5 documents: F62-R2-01 — the corrected note now overstates prerequisites for NEW result generation (required)Each newly added distribution note says, verbatim:
That is true for reading/re-analysing the already-committed historical results but not for generating new results. In the same retained Single targeted correction across the same five notes: distinguish (1) historic No changes to No new issue needed; this finding is fully within #60. #61 proceeds independently. |
…dies in the results/ note (F62-R2-01) (#60) Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5.5 <[email protected]>
Technical Lead — Fresh Full Re-Review #3, final cumulative PR #62 — MERGE GO (explicit Owner approval required)Exact immutable review: original Base Scope and complete re-review: independently inspected all six cumulative file patches, all five retained study documents' corrected distribution notes and nearby reproduction commands, the root Findings — all CLOSED on the cumulative state:
Distribution: the sole rule remains exactly Exact-head GitHub verification: Actions run 39650517995 completed SUCCESS, 10/10 jobs — Workflow lint, Quality, Lowest Dependencies, four Unit/Regression PHP versions (8.2–8.5), MySQL Integration on PHP 8.2/8.5, and CI Gate. PR metadata correction, not a source change: independently corrected the stale literal Decision: MERGE GO for the exact HEAD/Tree above only, pending explicit Owner merge approval. This is not a version, tag or release authorization; leave #37 open. After Owner-authorized squash merge, reconcile merge SHA, resultant tree, actual |
Ref #60, Ref #37. Implements the Lead-approved Option B from Issue #60. No version, tag, merge or release is claimed or authorized.
Identity
e4aba2043fe0956d7097621d22dfb23e4efbbcfa(origin/main)66c7e6772ecc1b49346eb11087ec0f6ce1c6d8ab(3 commits:5908dae→918c199→66c7e67)ea0c947118c6e7754a4d60107b0b6b6784edd097Review round 2 (F62-R2-01) — new commit
66c7e67, no amend/force-pushThe note (all five docs, 5 lines changed) now separates: (1) historical
results/data is browsable at the pinned link; (2) reading/re-analysing it locally needs those files from a full Git checkout or an independent download; (3) commands that start a new run write their own fresh results directory and do not need the excluded historical files (environment, dependency and write-permission requirements still apply). No claim that any archive setup is necessarily runnable.Review round 1 (F62-01, F62-02) — new commit
918c199, no amend/force-pushresults/...links need a checkout. It now says they work in GitHub's web view and in a full Git checkout but are dead in a--prefer-distinstall or any extracted archive, and that commands reading/writing raw data need a full checkout (or an independent copy ofresults/). The pinned permalink (tree at base SHA) returns HTTP 200.README.mdsentence "It is not part of the package" → "It is not production runtime or public API, and it does not change package runtime or consumer contracts"; the rest of the sentence (nosrc//tests/composer.json/public docs change, no Retry feature) is unchanged..gitattributesunchanged (one approved line); cumulative diff vs base: 6 files, +12/−1.Change (cumulative)
.gitattributes:/docs/studies/issue-32-retry-comparison/results/ export-ignoreonly.README.md,REPORT.md,ISSUE-42-REPORT.md,METHODOLOGY.md,ISSUE-42-PLAN.md(issue-32 study) + the F62-02 sentence fix inREADME.md.src/, runtime, tests, CI,composer.json; no evidence deleted from Git.Link audit
PERSISTENCE_PACKAGE_REFERENCE.md, CHANGELOG, ADRs, guides, architecture: no link into the excludedresults/(they link only to study reports, which are kept).results/heavily (README table, REPORT, ISSUE-42-REPORT, METHODOLOGY, PLAN): now covered by the distribution note above. Theissue-47/issue-48studies keep their ownresults/(not ignored) so their links stay valid.RED / GREEN: real GitHub zipball (Composer
--prefer-dist, clean consumer,vcsrepo, no tag)main@e4aba20@66c7e67(…/zipball/66c7e6772ecc1b49346eb11087ec0f6ce1c6d8ab)v1.4.0@fc1459b918c199): identical file set (247); only the five notes' docs differ (verified withdiff -rqon the extracted zips); 608,262 → 608,810 B. The retained study docs inside the installedvendor/copy contain the corrected note (5/5 checked);results/absent, matching the note.docs/studies/issue-32-retry-comparison/results/; 1 added (.gitattributes); 0 other removals.docs/studies/issue-32-retry-comparison/results/**count in the zipball: 0.src(26),composer.json,LICENSE,README.md,PERSISTENCE_PACKAGE_REFERENCE.md,CHANGELOG.md,docs/guides(2),docs/adr(6),docs/architecture(5),examples(12),schema(1),tests(80), the issue-32 reports, andissue-47/issue-48results/(16/14 files).git archive591,356 B;composer archivefrom a clean clone of the branch 574,992 B (0 ignored files). (composer archivefrom this git worktree with an untrackedvendor/produced 33 MB; that is a worktree/.git-file artifact of the scratch location, not of the change, and not a distribution path.)Gates (real MySQL 8.4.10 docker, CI credentials,
--log-bin-trust-function-creators=1verified1; container removed afterwards)Re-run on the final HEAD (MySQL 8.4.10 container removed afterwards). On the branch tree:
composer validate --strict✔ ·dump-autoload --optimize --strict-psr✔ ·check-platform-reqs✔ ·composer audit --abandoned=fail✔ (no advisories) ·composer analyse(phpstan max) ✔ no errors ·php-cs-fixer --dry-run✔ 0/100 ·composer test(unit+regression+integration) ✔ OK 665 tests, 4817 assertions ·composer test:consumer✔ two clean runs ·git diff --check✔.On the stripped tree (extracted
git archiveof HEAD,results/absent):composer test✔ OK 665 tests, 4814 assertions ·composer test:consumer(external Consumer Verification Harness, two clean runs) ✔.Not run locally: actionlint (no workflow change); lowest-dependency matrix (CI will run it).
Draft; awaiting the Technical Lead's independent review. Full study: #60 comment.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code