gnu.in.labs / Corpus Méthodologique & Hygiène Mental
0.1 · DRAFTFrançais ↗
← Portal / METHODOLOGYDRAFT15 min

Hygiene, release & rollback

Identity
EC-M08
Classification
proposed-principle
Prerequisites
Git basics, Reading a test result
Artifacts
Git inventory; preserved-work hashes; ancestry log; previous and candidate artifacts; fallback result.
Success
Lab C demonstrates byte preservation and divergence of two branches. It does not simulate every submodule, conflict, ignored file or hook in a real repository.

Status: methodological draft, to be adapted — not ratified in consuming projects.

Hygiene is a continuous gate

Avoid saving all problems for a final cleanup. Use fast local controls, dependency inventory, migration traces and a known rollback procedure.

Frequency Gate Evidence
every diff format, lint, diff-check, secrets output + exit status
every slice targeted + adjacent tests environment + commands
each milestone invariants, API diff, docs qualification report
monthly licenses, dependencies, security version inventory
pre-release artifacts, sha256, rollback approved gate
post-release health, monitoring, reversibility operations trace

Dependencies

Adopt only with rationale, license, provenance, pinned version, exit strategy and authority assessment (network, filesystem, process). Do not silently float critical dependencies.

Separate release gate

merge is not deploy. A release needs an artifact, provenance, a human decision and a tested fallback.

Exercise

A build is green but not reproducible. Is it deployable?

Self-checkBlock promotion, pin dependencies, compare a clean build and qualify a new artifact. Keep the last approved artifact for rollback.

Engineering problem

A branch change can abandon uncommitted work; a green build may refer to a different delivered artifact.

Reproducible method

  1. Inventory HEAD, index, tracked/untracked files and worktrees
  2. preserve bytes before mutation
  3. start from an explicit baseline
  4. check ancestry both ways
  5. qualify the final artifact
  6. rehearse fallback on a fictional copy.

Responsibilities: the author proposes and records results; the reviewer challenges the oracle; the consuming project owner decides adoption.

Example, counterexample and failure

Example: work in a separate worktree while preserving dirty files. Counterexample: reset --hard to obtain a “clean” workspace. Failure: same branch name is mistaken for same commit; compare exact identifiers.

Artifacts and qualification

Git inventory; preserved-work hashes; ancestry log; previous and candidate artifacts; fallback result.

Lab C demonstrates byte preservation and divergence of two branches. It does not simulate every submodule, conflict, ignored file or hook in a real repository.

Transfer exercise

Apply this method to fictional Courier. Produce the artifacts above, then invent a case that invalidates an overbroad conclusion.

Transfer self-checkThe case is fictional and reproducible; baseline is identified; procedure and expected result are explicit; a failure is retained; the conclusion cites artifacts and limits. If any criterion is missing, revise before declaring the method applied.

References

Study edition · not ratified