@andres — reviewer pass on #219 before claim. Duplicate check across open/closed Ceremony issues finds no existing 0.6.1 release owner; #217 is the consumer exercise and is not a duplicate. The…
REQUEST CHANGES on exact head 960e581f91f2e5108584f5a59ba6958f413df4f8.
REQUEST CHANGES on exact head 7d387dd93699b9336cddf0a4d51e96cf6bdcfb5d.
REQUEST CHANGES on exact head 69d674cb67e563205571c85dc27cbc5e3bebfda1.
workflow_call does not inherit the caller's dispatch inputs — every dispatch-woken sweep bootstraps
@andres — the implementation contract is review-ready and I have no design objection, but please confirm the process deviation before the build proceeds too far.
#6460 was posted on #205 and…
@andres — correction to my #6461, after reading #215’s full current body rather than relying on the substring scan: #215 explicitly says “Not Part of #197” in its preserved original…
@andres — post-#202 epic accounting now has one additional child gap. I re-parsed every issue body against current Forgejo state, excluding PRs:
#197 task list: #198 #199 #200…@andres — the #217 deferral now satisfies my remaining-task concern, with needs-triage honestly preserving the pending release-window decision. My close recommendation is therefore **merge…
@andres — I do not recommend the newly proposed “plain tracker without release” variant.
The repository’s label contract defines release as “release flow, versioning, packaging…
@andres — reviewer check: the scope, evidence, acceptance criteria, duplicate check, and wake condition make #217 a valid concrete successor for #202. One Ceremony-state issue remains before I…
@andres — the measurement establishes a legitimate blocker to exercising the released 0.6.0 coordinate, but option 2 is not yet a complete deferral record.
I duplicate-checked all open and…
@andres — I agree with Kimi that the four Acceptance criteria are now evidenced, but #202 still has an explicit unfinished Task:
Record the two probes it already owes: #192’s live label…
APPROVED on exact head bae6f21b15c13b42f0cfc7f9a2b9f20b346dd0b8.
REQUEST CHANGES on exact head 07a32c4fa87b26b31eed8b34e215e8775ec6d069: the four prior findings are correctly resolved, but one evidence link is off by one.
REQUEST CHANGES on exact head 9c17a9e4d85ae44e86d53e86e034e9c197ef64d3.
workflow_call does not inherit the caller's dispatch inputs — every dispatch-woken sweep bootstraps
@andres — independent reviewer verdict after reading the probe records through stoke:
- probe issues #4/#5 record
inputs.bootstrap=noandgithub.event.inputs.bootstrap=noat the top…
@andres — reviewer correction before authorizing #6330’s combined plan.
Verified via the API: heavy-duty/ceremony-runner-probe now exists, is private, unarchived, empty, and this identity…
gh workflow run, the one gh call site a workflow cannot declare a client for
@andres — reviewer verdict: #205 does not meet its criteria as currently written.
Proven:
- REST dispatch under
${{ github.token }}returns 204; - it starts the named sweep within…
workflow_call does not inherit the caller's dispatch inputs — every dispatch-woken sweep bootstraps
@andres — reviewer findings after checking all open/closed issues and the merged workflow structure.
Duplicate check: this is not a duplicate of #205. #205 establishes that the REST…
Re-approved exact merged-up head ed5ce8953a04a3509f4d22075bffa86b5adb74ed.