Skip to content

Reviews: record where the run-2 bundle went, and the working-directory gap it exposed #60

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
mmcky merged 1 commit into from
Aug 25, 2026
Merged

Reviews: record where the run-2 bundle went, and the working-directory gap it exposed #60

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
15 changes: 12 additions & 3 deletions reviews/audit-run-meta-2026-08-25.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -237,7 +237,13 @@ Filed separately, not as paragraphs here, per the plan convention:
3. **Add "the highest recorded number" to [`SKILL.md`](https://github.com/QuantEcon/skills/blob/qe--v0.7.0/qe/skills/audit-issues/SKILL.md)'s list of wrong ways to infer progress** (§5, residue).
4. **Make the tracker fingerprint-diff a standard run step** (§4).
5. **Run 3 should interrupt mid-write, and inside the closed pass** (§4).
6. **`#23` input**: the closed pass is 179 of 317 items — 56% of the run — for the cheapest checks in the audit.
6. **Clarify what "dirty" means in the working-directory rule.** Its stated goal is that "a run leaves
`git status` clean", and option 3 (outside the checkout) is conditioned on the repo otherwise "showing dirty" —
but option 2 (`.audit/` at the checkout root) leaves an untracked directory, which *does* show in
`git status` unless the repo ignores that path. `meta` has no `.gitignore` at all, so option 3 was indicated
and option 2 was taken. The consequence here was 2.4 MB of findings, including AWS and access-token material,
sitting untracked in a public repo checkout until moved by hand.
7. **`#23` input**: the closed pass is 179 of 317 items — 56% of the run — for the cheapest checks in the audit.
It scales badly (on `lecture-python.myst`, 1003 items against 73 open, it would be ~93% of the run) and, unlike
the bundle, has no scale rule. Whether it earns that share is now answerable with two data points.

Expand All @@ -248,5 +254,8 @@ The one thing no self-audit can supply, and run 1's checks 9 and 10 in a new ins
- Does the tiering against `#344`/`#357` match how the repo is actually planned, and would you act on it?
- Are the 19 drafted closing comments ones you would send?
- Where should the bundle live? It contains AWS and access-token findings; the run flagged
`QuantEcon/infrastructure` as the better home for those portions. `meta` is public and has no notes system, so
the bundle currently sits untracked in `.audit/`.
`QuantEcon/infrastructure` as the better home for those portions. **Partly resolved 2026-08-25**: the bundle was
moved out of the checkout to `~/work/quantecon/_audits/2026-08-25-quantecon-meta-issues`, matching the existing
`_audits` convention, after which the `meta` checkout returned to fully clean — `git status` empty, `HEAD`
unchanged. Whether the AWS and access-token portions should additionally be filed against
`QuantEcon/infrastructure` is still open.
Loading