Skip to content

chore(governance): re-pin baselineRef to the v1 moving alias - #188

Open
izzywdev wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
chore/repin-baseline-v1
Open

chore(governance): re-pin baselineRef to the v1 moving alias#188
izzywdev wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
chore/repin-baseline-v1

Conversation

@izzywdev

@izzywdev izzywdev commented Sep 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Re-pins .fuze/manifest.json baselineRef: main -> v1. One-line diff.

Why

It pinned main — the working edge. governance/versioning.md §5: "mainNot for consuming repos — unreviewed policy would propagate instantly."

Note this is a convention, not a hard schema constraint: governance/repo-manifest.schema.json states the rule in baselineRef's description but declares no enum or pattern, so nothing was failing validation. The drift was silent because nothing checks it.

Effect

v1 is the moving major alias, re-pointed on every compatible policy release, so this restores automatic propagation: the repo reconciles to the current standard on its next PR via governance-sync, with no per-repo fan-out.

Sequencing

FuzeSDLC PR #278 (baseline v1.11.0) must merge first. v1 currently dereferences to 2ffafc5 (= v1.10.0), which still carries the broken llm-endpoint/action.yml blob 78041e15; the fix (ab3f22e8, #277) and #274 are on main only. #278 advances v1 past both.

(Note: this repo's default branch is master, not main.)

Was "main"; governance/versioning.md is explicit that consuming repos pin
the moving major alias v1. Restores automatic propagation of the standard.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session-Id: fe3aa738-cb24-4315-a29b-29834ddea892
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Sep 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

fuze-code-review — automated verdict

No verdict was reached — this run is NOT an approval.

fuze-code-action conclusion was 'failure', not 'success' — no review was produced, so none can be approved. See the per-rung 'fuze-code-action' notices in the job log for the specific classification (availability / task / declined) and, on an availability failure, the named provider error that triggered it.

This is reported as a failed check deliberately: a review that could not run must never be silently indistinguishable from a clean one.

@codecov

codecov Bot commented Sep 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 41.06%. Comparing base (294c0a0) to head (6d43f66).

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #188   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   41.06%   41.06%           
=======================================
  Files          81       81           
  Lines        6171     6171           
  Branches      252      250    -2     
=======================================
  Hits         2534     2534           
  Misses       3634     3634           
  Partials        3        3           
Flag Coverage Δ
backend 41.06% <ø> (ø)
frontend 41.06% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant