Skip to content

docs: state the conformance-maintained policy #2

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
simontaurus merged 1 commit into from
Aug 31, 2026
Merged

docs: state the conformance-maintained policy #2

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
10 changes: 7 additions & 3 deletions README.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -35,11 +35,15 @@ Exit status is non-zero when any check fails.
| Compliance | the `examples/compliance` fixtures, where present |
| Coverage | every `x-oold-*` keyword has a fixture; every machine-checkable rule has one |

## Relationship to oold-python
## Maintenance

`oold-python` is the maintained implementation: it validates `oold-schema` in CI, ships the meta-schema version history, and is where new checks land. This package is frozen apart from fixes that keep the two in agreement.
This package is **conformance-maintained**. It pins a specification tag, runs the conformance suite, and keeps passing it. Nothing else: no feature work, no API surface, no npm release unless someone asks for one.

`oold-python`'s parity suite runs both over the same corpus and requires the same verdict. A disagreement is a bug in one of them, and the suite does not say which.
`oold-python` is the maintained implementation - it validates `oold-schema` in CI, ships the meta-schema version history, and is where new checks land. A check arrives here only when the conformance suite requires it.

A divergence from `oold-python` is a bug in this repository and is fixed, not recorded. That is the whole point: the reason to keep a second implementation is not redundancy, it is that when two implementations built from the same prose disagree, the usual cause is that the prose is ambiguous. That is a finding about the specification, and it only surfaces if divergences are investigated rather than allowed to accumulate.

`oold-python`'s parity suite runs both over the same corpus and requires the same verdict. It does not say which side is wrong.

## Licence

Expand Down
Loading