77 lines
3.5 KiB
Markdown
77 lines
3.5 KiB
Markdown
|
# Genesis — 2026-08-11
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## How this project arose
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
It came out of a different question. A `railiance-platform` session was
|
||
|
|
reviewing the reef/rail/rapp repo family model and asking where **bounded rapp
|
||
|
|
contexts** should live. One candidate answer was: map them to Forgejo
|
||
|
|
organizations.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
That answer was rejected, and the reasoning is what created this project.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## The rejected idea, and why
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Binding rapp context to Forgejo orgs collapses two independent dimensions,
|
||
|
|
which OAS P1 (`canon/standards/orthogonal-architecture_v1.0.md`) forbids:
|
||
|
|
*architecture descriptions MUST separate independent perspectives into
|
||
|
|
orthogonal dimensions*.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The decisive argument was cardinality. A repo lives in exactly one Forgejo org
|
||
|
|
— it is a path segment in the clone URL, so org-to-repo is 1:many. But a repo
|
||
|
|
can legitimately contribute to more than one rapp, so rapp-to-repo is
|
||
|
|
many:many. A many:many grouping cannot be derived from a 1:many one.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Recorded as decision `d07ee5f9-90d6-4e04-85d7-772103bc95f0`.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## The finding that remained
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Separating the dimensions did not make the org problem go away — it isolated
|
||
|
|
it. Once orgs were understood as a **stewardship** grouping answering "who may
|
||
|
|
push, what is discoverable together," the current state was plainly wrong: all
|
||
|
|
112 repos with a Forgejo origin sit under `coulomb/`, including `net-kingdom`,
|
||
|
|
`helix-forge`, and the entire `railiance-*` / `rail-*` / `rapp-*` / `reef-*`
|
||
|
|
families. An org containing everything draws no boundary.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The operator had already been considering this refactor independently, and had
|
||
|
|
been weighing whether orgs should instead map strictly to legal companies. That
|
||
|
|
was set aside for a reason worth preserving: legal attribution already has a
|
||
|
|
home in `LICENSE`, copyright headers, and contribution records
|
||
|
|
(`contribution-convention_v0.1`) — and those survive repo moves, where org
|
||
|
|
membership does not. So orgs can stay fluid without loosening legal rigor.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Why a project repo rather than a workplan
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
A blast-radius check turned up three surfaces, one of which changed the
|
||
|
|
assessment:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1. **112 git remotes** — every clone and CI checkout.
|
||
|
|
2. **ArgoCD sources** — `repoURL: https://forgejo.coulomb.social/coulomb/<repo>.git`;
|
||
|
|
GitOps stops syncing on a 404.
|
||
|
|
3. **Container image paths** — `repository: forgejo.coulomb.social/coulomb/core-hub`.
|
||
|
|
Forgejo's package registry is **org-scoped**. A rename moves image paths for
|
||
|
|
pods that are *already running*, so the failure does not appear at rename
|
||
|
|
time; it appears at the next reschedule or restart.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The third is why "rename the org and fix the remotes" is unsafe, and why the
|
||
|
|
operator judged this deep enough to warrant its own project repo rather than a
|
||
|
|
workplan in someone else's.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Deliberately deferred
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Operator decision: seed now, execute later, once the surrounding structure is
|
||
|
|
stable enough that side-effect complications can be *tested for* rather than
|
||
|
|
discovered in production.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
That condition is written into `ORGREF-WP-0001` as a four-part entry gate — the
|
||
|
|
family declaration validator running, deployable coverage known, a stable
|
||
|
|
re-runnable inventory, and a demonstrated rollback. The gate exists so the
|
||
|
|
decision to start is made against evidence rather than against a memory of this
|
||
|
|
conversation.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Target orgs
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
`railiance`, `netkingdom`, `helixforge`, `binky`, `experimental`, alongside
|
||
|
|
`coulomb` for what genuinely belongs to it. `experimental` is flagged in T02 as
|
||
|
|
a lifecycle grouping rather than a stewardship one — a question to settle, not
|
||
|
|
a decision already made.
|