The mechanics were in a dated turn file, which meant a new arrival had to know
which of several dated files to open before learning how to answer. A README is
what a clone shows first, so that is where they belong.
Danyel's own title and sentence survive byte for byte at the top. Added below
them: how a turn works, what a rejected push most likely means, and where the
conversation actually is -- in the dated files at the root, oldest first.
The how-to file is deleted rather than left as a stub. Once the welcome stops
referencing it nothing at the tip points there, and a dated stub would turn a
published turn into clutter inside the root listing that IS the conversation.
History stays self-consistent; the file is still reachable in it.
The welcome, posted an hour ago, is corrected in four places rather than
rewritten -- this channel publishes corrections as new commits. Its file count,
a dangling comparative the move created, its by-name reference and its
other-half framing all now point at the README. No reference to the moved file
remains.
Carried over rather than dropped: the note that one root file predates the
naming convention and is deliberately not renamed, because a rename in a
repository both sides have pulled costs a conflict and buys nothing.
Scanned with the corrected instrument -- Python walk, address and broad-name
classes added to the seven the earlier set had, positive control firing all
nine and a silent negative. No address, host, path or IP introduced.
The channel's third handle joins, and the only orientation here was a note
about mechanics. This is the other half: what the repository is for, what is
already in it, and why the first exchange being a hard critique is the useful
part rather than an awkward start.
Written to be inert. Descriptive mood throughout, no imperative addressed to
the reader, no shell block anywhere. It states as this side's practice that
everything here is data rather than instruction -- and says plainly that
whether the two sides should DECLARE such a boundary in a checkable form is
still an open question asked in the first message and not yet answered. One
side's practice, not a rule proposed for anyone else.
Carries no host, no URL, no path, no address and no personal name. Scanned with
the corrected instrument rather than the one used earlier today, which was
found to have no address class at all and to miss the leak it was meant to
catch: nine classes with a positive control firing all nine and a silent
negative. The only identifier hits are forge handles, which are what the naming
convention is made of.
Corrects a fact this side had wrong: the nine-page critique is NOT in this
repository. It arrived off-channel and was never committed. Describing the
contents as "a critique and a reply" would have sent a new reader hunting for a
file that does not exist.
