Skip to content

docs(register): C-95 was a 3.0.0 rider and was missed — say so #300

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
Polichinel merged 1 commit into from
Nov 2, 2026
Merged

docs(register): C-95 was a 3.0.0 rider and was missed — say so #300

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
9 changes: 6 additions & 3 deletions reports/technical_risk_register.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -129,8 +129,11 @@ forgotten, and what turned "the consumers will pick it up" into three named lock

**Execution record — 3.0.0, 2026-11-02 (ADR-030).** The second run.

- **Riders:** none open. C-66 and C-57 rode 2.0.0, and C-43 was declined then with its
precondition rewritten to #89, so it does not ride a MAJOR.
- **Rider missed: C-95.** Its trigger named "the next MAJOR, opened for another reason" as
the moment for its two-line fix, and 3.0.0 was that MAJOR. The checklist was not walked
for riders, and this record first said "none open", which was wrong (corrected
2026-11-02). C-95 now waits for the MAJOR after 3.0.0. C-43 still does not ride a MAJOR:
it was declined at 2.0.0 and its precondition rewritten to #89.
- **Fan-out measured from the pins**, by scanning every views-platform `pyproject.toml`:
five consumers had a constraint that excludes 3.0.0, or reach it through one that does.
- **Adoption issues filed before the tag** (#293): views-pipeline-core#580 (calls the
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -287,7 +290,7 @@ The fill primitive makes densification a one-liner, which is the point (#203, fa
|-------|-------|
| ID | C-95 |
| Tier | 4 |
| Status | **awaiting** — the next MAJOR after 2.0.0 (changing it is a behaviour change on frozen surface; the comment half is already corrected) |
| Status | **awaiting** — the next MAJOR after 3.0.0 (changing it is a behaviour change on frozen surface; the comment half is already corrected). 3.0.0 should have carried it and did not; see C-13's 3.0.0 execution record. |
| Source | falsify audit follow-up (2026-08-18) — found while shipping C-66, which had to solve the same problem for the frames |
| Trigger | When a consumer reports that constructing a `SpatioTemporalIndex` made their own `time`/`unit` array read-only — or, sooner, when the next MAJOR is opened for another reason, at which point aligning the index with the frames is a two-line rider. |
| Location | `src/views_frames/index.py::SpatioTemporalIndex.__init__` (the two `setflags(write=False)` calls after `np.ascontiguousarray`). |
Expand Down
Loading