Ting/CurryComb

Watch

Fork 0

OD-5: canonical duplicate repair — edit to pointer, leave with warning, or delete #38

New issue

Open

opened 2026-09-02 07:55:45 +00:00 by larandar · 2 comments

larandar commented

2026-09-02 07:55:45 +00:00

Owner

Question

For losing duplicate canonical comments, choose: edit to pointer, leave untouched with a warning, or delete where permissions allow. The handoff records that deletion is not required for convergence.

Where this already lives

docs/handoff.md §Open decisions 5; ADR-0002 §3 (automatic case already settled as edit-to-pointer) and §not-settled (curation duplicates — the broader policy asked here).

Decision procedure

Rule the curation-duplicate policy in an ADR append; state explicitly whether it supersedes the automatic-case behavior or coexists.

Unblocks

#15; completes #30's repair scope.

## Question For losing duplicate canonical comments, choose: edit to pointer, leave untouched with a warning, or delete where permissions allow. The handoff records that deletion is *not* required for convergence. ## Where this already lives `docs/handoff.md` §Open decisions 5; ADR-0002 §3 (automatic case already settled as edit-to-pointer) and §not-settled (curation duplicates — the broader policy asked here). ## Decision procedure Rule the curation-duplicate policy in an ADR append; state explicitly whether it supersedes the automatic-case behavior or coexists. ## Unblocks #15; completes #30's repair scope.

larandar referenced this issue

2026-09-02 07:56:00 +00:00

Rule: the seven open design decisions #41

larandar referenced this issue

2026-09-02 07:57:32 +00:00

Slice 4 — asynchronous curation #30

larandar referenced this issue

2026-09-02 07:57:47 +00:00

Curation duplicate-repair policy for human duplicates (OD-5 scope) #15

larandar added the

Kind/Documentation

Status/Need More Info

labels

2026-09-02 07:59:22 +00:00

larandar added a new dependency

2026-09-02 07:59:41 +00:00

#41 Rule: the seven open design decisions

larandar added a new dependency

2026-09-02 08:00:00 +00:00

#30 Slice 4 — asynchronous curation

larandar commented

2026-09-02 08:00:33 +00:00

Author

Owner

Grooming state: Open — owner ruling required.
Evidence: Related mentions: docs/handoff.md §Open decisions 5; ADR-0002 §3 (automatic case: lowest-id wins, edit-to-pointer) and §not-settled (curation duplicates). #15 is inert until ruled; deletion is explicitly not required for convergence.
Larandar: Decision required.

**Grooming state:** Open — owner ruling required. **Evidence:** Related mentions: `docs/handoff.md` §Open decisions 5; ADR-0002 §3 (automatic case: lowest-id wins, edit-to-pointer) and §not-settled (curation duplicates). #15 is inert until ruled; deletion is explicitly not required for convergence. **Larandar:** Decision required.

larandar commented

2026-09-02 08:47:05 +00:00

Author

Owner

Question: For losing duplicate canonical comments, should the comment be edited to a pointer, left with a warning, or deleted where permitted, and how does that coexist with the automatic edit-to-pointer case?
Decision procedure: Rule the curation-duplicate policy in an ADR append and state whether it supersedes or coexists with the automatic-case behavior.
Consumers: #15 and the repair scope of #30.
Sources: CurryComb#38 body; docs/handoff.md Open decisions 5; ADR-0002 section 3 and not-settled; audit 2026-09-19/20 G43.
State: The issue body remains the full record; this comment is the current projection, not a promise of future replacement.

**Question:** For losing duplicate canonical comments, should the comment be edited to a pointer, left with a warning, or deleted where permitted, and how does that coexist with the automatic edit-to-pointer case? **Decision procedure:** Rule the curation-duplicate policy in an ADR append and state whether it supersedes or coexists with the automatic-case behavior. **Consumers:** #15 and the repair scope of #30. **Sources:** CurryComb#38 body; docs/handoff.md Open decisions 5; ADR-0002 section 3 and not-settled; audit 2026-09-19/20 G43. **State:** The issue body remains the full record; this comment is the current projection, not a promise of future replacement.

No milestone

No project

No assignees

1 participant

Notifications

Due date

The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Blocks

#30 Slice 4 — asynchronous curation

Ting/CurryComb

#41 Rule: the seven open design decisions

Ting/CurryComb

Reference

Ting/CurryComb#38

No description provided.

Rows
Columns