Child 8 of #2409.
Purpose
Find out whether any bookkeeping under scripts/ still forces edits on ordinary feature and fix PRs, and remove only what replays as a saved file without weakening independent evidence. Bounded: close with no implementation if nothing qualifies.
Baseline
Measured on main at e7d97f7dfe, recent 456 code commits:
- 24% of feat+fix commits touch
scripts/; 8% touch scripts/layering/. Refactor commits: 67% and 61%. The layering churn is the migration's own cost and fell from 35 to 6 per 100 commits.
- feat+fix files under
scripts/ with the most edits: scripts/layering/package-boundaries.test.ts 6, scripts/__tests__/eager-closure-budgets.ts 5, scripts/maestro-conformance/build-manifest.mjs 4, scripts/maestro-conformance/corpus/manifest.json 4, scripts/__tests__/test-file-size-ratchet.test.ts 4.
- Already ruled out: the eager-closure budget and the test-file-size ratchet compare against the merge-base and need a hand row only for approved exceptions; the package export snapshot in
package-boundaries.test.ts:55 is an independently reviewed surface by design; Maestro fixtures are pinned upstream artifacts. Replaying the removal of every such edit over the recent 186 feat+fix commits moves the median files per commit from 8 to 8.
Required work
- Take the ten most recent feat or fix commits that touched
scripts/. For each scripts/ file edited, classify the edit: independent evidence (keep), approved exception row (keep), or duplicate bookkeeping that restates something the same PR already declares elsewhere.
- For each duplicate, show the historical replay: the same PR with that edit removed and the check still red against a planted violation.
- Remove only those. Post the table either way.
Acceptance
- The table of ten commits with a classification per
scripts/ edit is posted on this issue.
- Each removal shows a replay of F → F−1 on a real historical commit and a red gate against a planted violation.
- No gate is replaced by self-comparison of the implementation under test.
Non-goals
- Touching the layering gates while the extraction program is still running.
- Regenerating Maestro conformance fixtures in ordinary tests.
Child 8 of #2409.
Purpose
Find out whether any bookkeeping under
scripts/still forces edits on ordinary feature and fix PRs, and remove only what replays as a saved file without weakening independent evidence. Bounded: close with no implementation if nothing qualifies.Baseline
Measured on
mainate7d97f7dfe, recent 456 code commits:scripts/; 8% touchscripts/layering/. Refactor commits: 67% and 61%. The layering churn is the migration's own cost and fell from 35 to 6 per 100 commits.scripts/with the most edits:scripts/layering/package-boundaries.test.ts6,scripts/__tests__/eager-closure-budgets.ts5,scripts/maestro-conformance/build-manifest.mjs4,scripts/maestro-conformance/corpus/manifest.json4,scripts/__tests__/test-file-size-ratchet.test.ts4.package-boundaries.test.ts:55is an independently reviewed surface by design; Maestro fixtures are pinned upstream artifacts. Replaying the removal of every such edit over the recent 186 feat+fix commits moves the median files per commit from 8 to 8.Required work
scripts/. For eachscripts/file edited, classify the edit: independent evidence (keep), approved exception row (keep), or duplicate bookkeeping that restates something the same PR already declares elsewhere.Acceptance
scripts/edit is posted on this issue.Non-goals