docs(P-022): #251 — reconcile roadmap and crate status after #214/#249 - #298
Conversation
…249 The proposal still opened with "draft / exploratory — no Rust code committed yet" while rust/ has five implemented, parity-gated workspace crates. Docs only, per the #251 brief; the historical design rationale is untouched — status is reconciled with markers and a status block, not rewrites: * top-level status -> "in execution" + an implementation-status block: own-ir, own-syntax, own-cfg (incl. the canonical CFG-JSON seam + cfg_parity fixtures the strategy text said "still needs building"), own-diagnostics (data-only layer), own-analysis (solver + ownership/ lifetime/buffer/effect/DI — the #214/#249 analysis-heart milestone); * every remaining production step points to exactly one #250 child issue: 5a #255, 5b #256, 5c #257, 6a #258 (delivered: spec/Bridge.md + BridgeBehaviorMatrix.md, review via PR #297), 6b #259, 7a #260 (+#269 AnalysisTrace support), 7b #261, 8 cutover #262; Datalog/Ascent stays post-cutover with no issue, deliberately; * migration-strategy steps 0-4 marked done in place; the per-layer-seams paragraph and the Placement footer get status notes instead of rewrites; * proposals/README.md index row updated to match. Python stays authoritative until #262's cutover gate; the verdict-changing inference feature-freeze stands. No code or fixture files changed. Closes #251. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MdYFKUaygHz1T9H1qJ7BqK
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 38 minutes Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 69156e620a
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
… main yet Codex review on #298 correctly flagged that spec/Bridge.md and spec/BridgeBehaviorMatrix.md are referenced as delivered but do not exist in this checkout — they live on PR #297 (the #258 deliverable, in independent review). Reworded the 6a status in both places to say the specs land with PR #297 and #259 starts only after that review gate, so the checklist stays truthful regardless of which PR merges first. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MdYFKUaygHz1T9H1qJ7BqK
2 participants
Что и зачем
P-022 proposal всё ещё открывался статусом «draft / exploratory — no Rust code committed yet», тогда как в
rust/уже пять реализованных parity-gated crates. Docs-only reconciliation по брифу #251: top-level статус → «in execution» + implementation-status блок (own-ir / own-syntax / own-cfg с CFG-JSON seam иcfg_parity/ own-diagnostics data-layer / own-analysis — analysis-heart milestone #214/#249); каждый оставшийся production-шаг указывает ровно на один child issue #250 (5a #255, 5b #256, 5c #257, 6a #258 — deliverable сдан, review в PR #297, 6b #259, 7a #260 + поддержка #269, 7b #261, cutover #262; Datalog — post-cutover, намеренно без issue); шаги 0–4 стратегии помечены ✅ на месте; параграф per-layer seams и Placement получили статус-заметки вместо переписывания; строка индекса proposals/README.md обновлена. Историческая design-рациональность не тронута; правило «Python authoritative до cutover» и inference feature-freeze сохранены явно.Тип изменения
Как проверено
python tests/run_tests.py(зелёный; код и фикстуры не менялись)ruff check .иmypyrust/Cargo.toml↔ задокументированных cratesСвязанные issue
Closes #251. Refs #250, #214, #249, #297.
Чеклист
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
https://claude.ai/code/session_01MdYFKUaygHz1T9H1qJ7BqK
Generated by Claude Code