Why: turn the confirmed scheduling specification into sequenced work with explicit interfaces, evidence handling and admission validation.
Evidence: SELF plan checks verified fixed source commits, 83 relative links, six units and four Python example blocks; implementation and runtime checks remain NOT_RUN.
Impact: reviewable implementation plan and navigation only; no task scripts, workflow, platform settings or business behavior are implemented.
Refs: docs/proposals/2026-10-13-merge-queue-implementation-plan.md; Dev policy/merge-queue.md r1; Development-Guidelines draft.11
Why: preserve the approved plan and point readers to the actual task objects instead of treating historical planning state as current delivery status.
Evidence: user approval of plan r1 and Dev task-card receipts; actual platform activation and real trial remain NOT_RUN.
Impact: plan metadata, test-file organization and navigation only; task state remains authoritative in Dev.
Refs: docs/proposals/2026-10-13-merge-queue-implementation-plan.md; Dev .task/feature-merge-queue-policy-draft.md
Why: Validation of the complete candidate against origin/main detected added blank lines at the end of the authored documents.
Evidence: git diff --check origin/main validates the final candidate format; unchanged semantic content remains covered by the approved specification and implementation plan.
Impact: Document whitespace only; no version obligations, execution mode or authorization change.
Refs: Merge queue implementation plan U4; formal document validation
Why: Historical observations in the approved plan used current-tense wording after implementation advanced, making the progress pointer harder to interpret.
Evidence: Independent documentation review identified the wording; the diff changes only baseline time and references current task/PR evidence. Document replay follows on the new candidate.
Impact: No change to approved units, interfaces, authorization or acceptance criteria; actual progress remains in the task and fixed-candidate records.
Refs: Documentation review Minor finding; approved plan ba4044d; U1-U6
Why: The process-document main branch advanced with project membership and privacy records after this implementation plan was reviewed.
Evidence: origin/main was freshly fetched; the reviewed plan remains the same and the final combined document checks will be replayed on the resulting head.
Impact: Preserve the other task's proposal and index entries alongside the approved merge queue plan, without changing its scope or execution authorization.
Refs: Documents PR #96; origin/main 047d362; independent review docs_delivery_review
weichen
marked the pull request as ready for review 2026-10-13 14:30:38 +00:00
weichen
merged commit 129cc3579d into main2026-10-13 14:30:38 +00:00
Blocking a user prevents them from interacting with repositories, such as opening or commenting on pull requests or issues. Learn more about blocking a user.
Why:
为合入调度留存已批准的六单元实施计划，覆盖幂等同步、局部恢复、源码外证据、规范采纳、所有者平台验证和三任务试行。计划正文只在本过程仓维护；实际源码、阶段结果及固定后记录回链任务/PR。
Evidence:
当前固定文档候选
f1a44fdac6eb927ba5ed8dc1e62ff954a19cc725，权威 base5a06acf7cded07797ec4ebfea42c89331359b0bb；clean 且包含目标。REPLAY（独立审阅者 /root/docs_delivery_review）：先独立重放后审阅，已核对纠正恢复同步时点与历史基线用语，技术文档内容 Review 通过，无剩余问题。实际命令为
RECEIPT=/tmp/mq-independent-doc-review-20261013-02.json CMD="python3 /tmp/mq-stage7-doc-checks-20261013.py" make evidence，两仓 base/head 均在原始输出中；148 个相对链接、六单元及四段 Python 示例语法解析通过，未执行示例。原始收据来源保持 SELF，独立角色及实际重放单独记录；该文件由执行者保存，内部摘要6a9f56abf12d63237fff242829f7037a1c662378a58a2c7f14dfe0c94d6f29b3。不由本审阅代替阶段 7 人工结论、平台门禁或实际模式切换。原实施计划
ba4044d57e38d0887dd425d052abf26b20a28bf4获用户批准；随后只调整测试文件组织、批准/进展回链、留白及“编制时”基线表达，未改变目标、公共契约或验收条件。本仓无独立程序/CI，真实宿主验收另处理。Impact:
纯过程文档与索引。历史源码观察明确按编制时解释，当前能力以实际任务及固定候选证据为准。当前草稿等待人工阶段结论；平台保护、实际模式切换和三任务试行仍待其门禁。
Refs:
本次交付核验
用户于2026-10-13批准本轮已验证部分的阶段7结果；当前文档候选及贡献内容的独立Review有效，最新组合独立REPLAY为 /root/docs_delivery_review，原始收据 /tmp/mq-independent-doc-review-20261013-03.json。文档差异/149个相对链接/6单元/4段仅语法解析示例通过，原始收据保持SELF。两仓无独立程序或CI定义，CI为N/A；不冒充Dev产品CI。本次只交付文档，宿主采纳、最新Dev准入、平台负例与模式启用仍按条件办理。