Ci9 gateproof #102

Merged
admin merged 3 commits from ci9-gateproof into release/1.0 2026-09-24 14:37:16 +02:00
+31
View File
@@ -110,6 +110,37 @@ name: checks
# trigger` step below then keeps it that way mechanically rather than by asking
# the next editor to read this comment.
#
# ⚠️ READ THE BLIND SPOTS ON THAT STEP BEFORE TRUSTING THE SENTENCE ABOVE.
# "Mechanically" holds only for a reintroduced filter that still names the
# PR's own base. For blind spots 1 and 3 the defence IS this comment, because
# the guard lives inside the workflow that a filter makes Gitea skip. Blind
# spot 3 is the one that matters: a filter naming a branch THIS pull request
# does not target is itself skipped, lands green and untested, and then every
# subsequent pull request the filter DOES NOT NAME is skipped too. That is the
# gate off, silently.
#
# ⚠️ THAT DIRECTION IS THE WHOLE POINT AND IT IS EASY TO WRITE BACKWARDS. A
# pull request that MATCHES the filter still runs; it is the one the filter
# excludes that Gitea sits out, reports `skipped`, and the rollup launders
# into `success`. An earlier draft of this very clause said "matching it is
# skipped", which is the inverse of the measurement and contradicted the
# paragraph directly below.
#
# ⚠️ AND THE DANGEROUS ONE IS NOT `branches: [main]`, WHICH AT LEAST LOOKS
# WRONG. It is `branches: [release/1.0]`, which looks like tightening onto the
# protected branch and is what a careful person would write. Every day-to-day
# pull request still runs and still goes green, so nothing appears broken -
# and the only thing switched off is the `release/1.0` -> `master` release
# PR, i.e. the one whose content reaches an installed system. SEC-2 made that
# PR the mandated release path (docs/RELEASE.md), so this is now a live route
# rather than a hypothetical one.
#
# Closing it needs a SECOND permanently unfiltered workflow posting its own
# context, with that context added to the `status_check_contexts` of BOTH
# `release/1.0` AND `master` - both carry the rule since SEC-2, and adding it
# to one alone leaves the hole open on the other. A forge change, with the
# owner.
#
# THE MEASUREMENT, because the obvious guess is wrong and was nearly written
# here as fact. A skip-ci keyword in a commit message (`[skip ci]`, `[ci skip]`,
# `[no ci]`, `[skip actions]`, `[actions skip]`) does NOT behave like a filter