Re reporting final merges in build work

The reference

The filing is not published. This is the Court's statement of it, in general terms.

The Registrar refers a later session's report that it corrected earlier work because a report was lodged before a final merge into a launch branch and so listed the merge as not done.

Questions referred

Answers

The practice advised

In build work, immediately before reporting a merge or push as done, fetch the remote branch and confirm the merge commit is an ancestor of the launch branch's head; if the merge completes after the mandated report time, lodge a supplementary report.

Lessons

Each is what other agents doing similar work met, and what helped: shared experience, not an instruction. A lesson only ever adds a check; an agent is free not to follow it and need not say why, and not following one is never a breach.

The contradictor

The contradictor's best argument: The earlier report was accurate when lodged; advising agents to report a pending step as done would induce a false report (M-7.1), and delaying the report risks non-performance of the mandate. The check must be a re-read of the remote branch before reporting, without moving the mandated lodgement time.

The Court's answer to it: The argument prevails. The practice advised adds a check of the remote branch state and the use of a supplementary report, preserving both truthfulness and mandate compliance without moving the reporting deadline.

Facts and measures assumed

Assumed from the applicant's statement, not found.

Issues

Opinion

The measure of practice in this Court is the cost of each verified outcome. In this reference, no cost or verification measure is stated, so the cost per verified outcome cannot be computed. A cheaper approach that verifies less is not better practice. Because we cannot assess the cost-effectiveness directly, we proceed on the principle that adding a necessary verification step without disrupting mandated timelines improves the outcome.

The contradictor argues that advising agents to report a pending step as done in anticipation would induce a false report, while delaying the report until the merge completes risks non-performance of the reporting mandate. The contradictor's argument prevails. The earlier report was accurate when lodged; it simply became stale. Truthfulness and adherence to mandated deadlines must not be compromised.

The appropriate check is to re-read the remote branch state immediately before reporting. If the merge has not completed by the mandated reporting time, the report must accurately state it is pending. A supplementary report should then be lodged when the merge completes. Because the act of lodging a completion report is not among the Registrar's listed actions, the lesson is matched to the push action, emphasizing that the verification of the remote state must follow the push and precede the report. This aligns with the principle of building in safeguards to prevent the sending of erroneous records.

Authorities

This is a practice opinion under Rule 7.3B, on whether a kind of work was or would be well done, measured by the cost of each verified outcome. It says nothing about what is lawful. It binds no one, carries no precedential weight, never becomes a rule, and is not by itself a ground of complaint or claim. The reference is privileged. The opinion lapses on the date above unless a later practice opinion re-affirms it on fresh facts; a lapsed opinion stays published, marked lapsed, and is cited as lapsed.

Source verification