Repository navigation
Conversation
…or-opt-in # Conflicts: # docs/reference/v5-model-coverage.md # scripts/lib/tla-runtime-models.ts
…upervisor-packaging
…upervisor-packaging
…or-opt-in # Conflicts: # docs/lifecycle-supervisor.md
…upervisor-packaging
|
@codex review |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Keep it up! Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
🛡️ Codex Security Review · Automatically triggeredSecurity review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
|
Ready for lead: 9883fa0 How it must merge: after #802 and then #811 land, merge Since the last note: only normal, conflict-free merges of #811. They carry #802's round-5 supervisor changes (EINVAL, framed receipts with What I ran locally (Linux 6.8 x86_64): Bot thread handled: a Codex P2 on Review: the persistent Codex reviewer is CLEAN at this head. The Codex GitHub bot found no major issues and no security issues at this head. Not verified: macOS release acceptance outside hosted CI; signing and notarization of the helper in a real release; Linux arm64 and Docker image qualification; an actual self-upgrade from a published release to one carrying the helper. No further push to this branch after this note. |
…isor # Conflicts: # docs/reference/v5-model-coverage.md # scripts/lib/tla-runtime-models.ts
…or-opt-in # Conflicts: # docs/reference/v5-model-coverage.md
…upervisor-packaging
|
@codex review |
|
Ready for lead: 326268a A conflict-free normal merge of #811 at 8ffd3c0 (which carries #802 eb47cc8 and What I ran (Linux 6.8 x86_64): Hosted CI: queued at note time (4 pass, 26 pending, 0 failed); I did not wait for the macOS jobs. The previous head 9883fa0 was 32/32 green. Review: the persistent Codex reviewer is CLEAN at this head. The Codex GitHub bot was re-requested. The group-signal decision from my previous note (keep numeric group delivery with the documented race) is still open for you. Not verified: unchanged from the previous note (macOS release acceptance outside CI, signing and notarization, Linux arm64 and Docker image, a real self-upgrade). |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Breezy! Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
🛡️ Codex Security Review · Automatically triggeredSecurity review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
…on a sibling Every guard took a blocking flock on the shared lifecycle.log around each record. A guard stopped (SIGSTOP, a debugger, a hung write) while holding it stalled every sibling guard's loop in flock: no output, no exit detection, no stop handling. Captured on macOS as the 9/100 failure of expired_target_does_not_abandon_other_recovery (worker guard blocked in Lines::flush -> flock while the frozen blocked guard held the lock). Each record is now one write on the O_APPEND descriptor with no lock. The kernel places each append atomically, so whole records from different guards never interleave on a local file system; only a short write (for example a full disk) can split one. The unused flock retry helper and its unit test are removed. Regressions: held_log_lock_never_stalls_a_guard holds the log flock from outside for the whole run and requires output to reach the log and stop to answer stopped within the normal bound (fails with the old lock); concurrent_guards_append_whole_records_without_a_lock checks two guards bursting 64 KiB records leave only whole, unmixed records. Docs state the log's ordering and integrity and list every lock, who can hold it across a blocking call, and the bound. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…hort-write causes Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…or-opt-in # Conflicts: # docs/versions/v5/getting-started.md
…sor lock table Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…upervisor-packaging
|
@codex review |
|
Ready for lead: d9250a1 Merge after #811. This head is a conflict-free normal merge of #811 a9bc571 (which carries #802 b2b8d53 and Generated files: regenerated, with no diff (CLI reference, machine-output reference, agent plugins). #821 adds no What I ran (Linux 6.8 x86_64):
Hosted CI: 6 pass and 24 pending at note time; I did not wait for the macOS jobs. Reviews: the persistent Codex reviewer is CLEAN at this head. I re-requested the Codex GitHub bot. Still open for you: keep numeric group delivery with the documented race (my recommendation), or switch to per-member delivery. |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Swish! Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
🛡️ Codex Security Review · Automatically triggeredSecurity review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
…isor-opt-in # Conflicts: # .github/workflows/lifecycle-supervisor.yml # docs/lifecycle-supervisor.md # docs/lifecycle.md # docs/reference/v5-model-coverage.md # packages/lifecycle-supervisor/Cargo.toml # packages/lifecycle-supervisor/README.md # packages/lifecycle-supervisor/src/main.rs # packages/lifecycle-supervisor/src/os.rs # packages/lifecycle-supervisor/src/protocol.rs # packages/lifecycle-supervisor/src/storage.rs # packages/lifecycle-supervisor/src/supervisor.rs # packages/lifecycle-supervisor/tests/fake_caller.rs # scripts/lib/tla-runtime-models.ts
…upervisor-packaging
|
@codex review |
|
Ready for lead: 016946d Merge after #811, then merge Generated files: I regenerated the CLI reference, machine-output reference and agent plugins; none changed. What I ran (Linux 6.8 x86_64):
Hosted CI: at note time 3 pass 3 pending . I did not wait for the macOS jobs. Review: the persistent Codex reviewer is CLEAN at this head. It checked #860 against #821: update observation reports version availability, not companion compatibility, and staged validation independently refuses a missing or mismatched companion before publication. I re-requested the Codex GitHub bot. Still open for you: the group-signal decision (my recommendation: keep numeric group delivery with the documented race for this release). It is also listed in the follow-up PR. |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. 🚀 Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
🛡️ Codex Security Review · Automatically triggeredSecurity review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
…isor-packaging # Conflicts: # src/lib/lifecycle-supervisor.ts
|
Ready for lead: f15b3f5 A normal merge of Squash resolution: one conflict, Proof the tree is the verified one: Checks: typecheck, and |
Ship the matching lifecycle supervisor beside the Compose-default CLI in stable archives, source installs, Homebrew, supported prerelease bundles and the slim image. Upgrade stages the companion before CLI publication and restores or removes it on rollback, with recorded hashes and identity checks. Rebuilding replaces the executable atomically so a running helper keeps its inode.
Depends on #802 and #811; this draft targets
nextand includes those unmerged prerequisites. The packaging-only diff is the 28-file slice above the opt-in branch. No lifecycle default change or release dispatch. Stable targets remain macOS arm64/x86_64 and Linux x86_64/arm64; existing prerelease support remains macOS arm64 only.Supervisor ownership and recovery diagram
Validation before prerequisite updates: 102 focused Bun tests, 65 retained Python installer compatibility tests, Linux archive checksums and real normal/slim/local-bin installed-artifact checks, typecheck, lint, actionlint and privacy scan passed. No new Python runtime dependency is introduced. The final prerequisite merge preserves the packaging slice unchanged; exact-head CI/review are pending.
Not verified: completed full local suite (terminated without a summary), macOS runtime/signing, Linux arm64 and Docker image qualification. The existing compiler artifact checker requested unavailable sudo; no bypass was attempted, and its combined OS-isolation gate remains unqualified locally. Native macOS jobs are justified by executable signing/install behavior and the supervisor prerequisite's platform code. This draft is not ready to merge or publish.
Open in [code]smith · Need help on this PR? Tag
@codesmith-botwith what you need.