You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
The open-source template says where to read in a project, not which of its documents wins when they disagree #2778
What the template says today, and what it leaves open
emrg/server/open_source_prompt.md §3.1 tells a contributor, before writing any code, to read the target repository's conventions (CONTRIBUTING.md, the PR template), then "the repository from the root (README, docs, directory structure)", then the design intent from history, tests and issue records.
That is a list of places to read. It says nothing about what to do when they disagree — and in a project that has accumulated prose they do disagree. A README describes what the project was when it was written; a design note describes an intention that a later change narrowed; a decisions or rulings ledger records what the maintainers actually settled; a code comment records what one author believed at the time. Two of these commonly contradict each other on the same point, and the contributor reads both in the same session.
What happens without a rule
The reader resolves the conflict by whichever document happens to agree with the change they already have in mind, and neither they nor the reviewer can see that a choice was made. For a project that keeps a rulings ledger this is a specific loss: the ledger exists precisely to end arguments, and it loses to a design note only because the note was read second.
What the fix must satisfy
The template states that a project's prose has an order of authority, and that the contributor reads the project's own stated order first where it declares one.
Where the project declares no order, the template names the two readings that settle a conflict.
The template says the contributor names which document they followed when they resolved a conflict, so the reviewer reads a decision rather than an accident.
It sits in the section that already owns "read the project before changing it" — it is not appended at the end of the file, and it does not restate what that section already says about reading the docs at all.
Activity
argszero commentedon Nov 9, 2026
Handled by #2779