Stop the readme citing its own opening section for the other answer - #368
Merged
Merged
Conversation
…367) The paragraph about verifying a downloaded archive said there is nothing to run the checks against, that no release exists, and that the section at the top of this file says so. That section says the opposite, two hundred and forty lines above, and has since the first release on 2026-09-03. So one file carried both answers and which one a reader got depended on where they stopped, with the wrong one naming the right one as its authority. The citation is what made it hard to catch by reading: a reader who trusts the cross-reference has no reason to scroll back and check it. The failure this prevents is an operator holding one of the two published archives, opening the section about checking it, and being told there is nothing to check. The paragraph now points at `Where this is today` for the releases rather than restating them, which is where the second copy came from in the first place. What it was right about is kept and stays negative: nothing here claims anybody has run the checks, and this file still records no run of them. Signed-off-by: Nils Lehnen <30603423+iderex@users.noreply.github.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Refs #367
Finishes: #367
What was wrong
Two hundred and forty lines apart in one file, and the paragraph carrying the
wrong answer names the paragraph carrying the right one as its authority. The
command it says prints nothing prints two rows:
The citation is what makes it hard to catch by reading. A reader who trusts the
cross-reference has no reason to scroll back and check it, and the section it
points at moved on 2026-09-05 while this paragraph did not:
The paragraph is the one about checking a downloaded archive, so an operator
holding one of the two published archives opened the section about verifying it
and was told there is nothing to verify.
What it says now
The paragraph points at
Where this is todayfor the releases instead ofrestating them, which is where the second copy came from. The correction is
marked in the text, in the shape this file already uses, so a reader who saw the
old sentence can see that it moved.
What stays negative
Nothing here claims anybody has run the checks. That half of the paragraph was
right, it is what the paragraph is for, and it is kept in the same words: the
commands are what an archive is checkable with, and this file records no run of
them. The repair removes an absence that was false and adds no assurance in its
place.
What holds it
Nothing new, and nothing is claimed.
ReadmeStatementTestsreads the two fencedlists in this file and neither is in this section; no leg reads the prose around
them, which that suite's own remarks say. A release listing is not derivable
here in any case, because the suite runs with no network.
per target, over both server lines, before the change and after it.
One thing about where this landed
README.mdis the file the two changes above it in the log landed in, both under#88. This is one sentence in a section neither of them touched, and it is a
separate issue rather than a widened scope on either. If it collides with work in
flight on that file, the collision is in this section and nowhere else.
Reading
No second reader looked at this. The commands above are the evidence in place of
one.