docs(release): v0.6.0 plan — 'Reach and Rigor' (breadth × depth) - #227
Open
avrabe wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
docs(release): v0.6.0 plan — 'Reach and Rigor' (breadth × depth)#227avrabe wants to merge 1 commit into
avrabe wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
… scope) Plans the next release along both north-star axes. Grounded on measured state: T2 (object-code verification) and T3 (schedulability) are UNTOUCHED (req+V both proposed); T4's V was never closed; and 12 requirements have a closed V but a lagging status, so the release-completeness gate currently misreports them. Scope committed in full: D1 close T4's V, D2 object-code first light, D3 traceability promotion + a CI gate so the drift cannot recur, D4 schedulability bridge; B1 fused gale-nano gust:os component (gale#224), B2 a third target family through the AADL model, B3 a new capability class. Sequenced D3 first (until the gate tells the truth, cuttability is unanswerable) with the two research-shaped tracks late. Claims are not committed with the scope: any workstream that cannot close honestly ships WITH ITS GAP STATED rather than inflated. Kill-criteria retained for the two overclaimable items (T2 first light, the component's gust:hal-only residual). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. 📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know! |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Plans v0.6.0 along both north-star axes, grounded on measured state rather than assumption.
What the survey found
Plus a machinery gap: 12 requirements whose
VER-*is verified but whose own status still readsimplemented/proposed— the whole verified driver suite, gpio, timer, and the syscall seam. The release-completeness gate reads them as not done. It errs safe, but it misreports, and nothing prevents recurrence.Scope (all seven committed)
Depth — D1 close T4's WCET V · D2 object-code verification first light (T2) · D3 traceability promotion + a CI gate so the drift can't recur · D4 compositional schedulability bridge (T3).
Breadth — B1 fused gale-nano component exporting
gust:os(gale#224, the real multi-consumer deliverable) · B2 a third target family through the AADL model (today: two families, one vendor) · B3 a new capability class.The discipline
Scope is committed; claims are not. Anything that can't close honestly ships with its gap stated — never dropped silently, never inflated. Kill-criteria are retained for the two overclaimable items: T2 "first light" that is only a re-assertion of the differential test is not first light, and a fused component that leaks a scheduler/heap import is not the consumable unit (publish nothing, report the leak).
Sequenced D3 first — until the gate tells the truth, "is v0.6.0 cuttable?" isn't a question rivet can answer.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code