PR #186 frames a guard for apply_resource_op's delete arm that refuses
before touching disk when any affected buffer is modified. Rev 6 said the
opposite for the same call site: the file is deleted, the modified buffer
survives orphaned, and §11 named that orphaning as accepted residue. Two
lanes, two answers.
Rev 7 adopts the settled split, recorded verbatim in the framing and in
the ledger lane so the two cannot diverge again: #186 owns the urgent
pre-filesystem refusal for synchronous apply_resource_op; #171 later owns
full post-delete lifecycle reconciliation, including the async race where
a buffer becomes modified after dired dispatch. Not re-litigated.
Census of orphaning claims: 20 matched lines resolving to 13 distinct
passages, classified by reading each enclosing passage rather than the
matched line. 4 ownership claims (this lane closes the LSP data-loss
defect) reassigned to #186; 4 policy claims (LSP intentionally deletes
and orphans) deleted; 3 ground-truth statements kept, because main really
does destroy unsaved work on that arm, but attributed to #186 as fixer;
2 async-race claims kept and narrowed.
Q#DR18 is rewritten, not withdrawn. The reconcile_delete seam survives
and is explicitly not cancelled. Three changes: the synchronous path
refuses before disk (#186 Q#RD1, adopted not re-decided); the policy
becomes symmetric rather than asymmetric; and the walk rule is adopted
from #186's Q#RD6 rather than reinvented — scan every path-bound buffer,
normalize once, component-aware Path::starts_with — which is
character-for-character what rev 6 wrote independently. Whichever lane
lands first owns the query, per #186's own boundary wording.
DeleteReconcile.kept_modified stays and is not dead. The synchronous
caller can no longer produce it; the asynchronous one still can.
Residue kept, and narrowed to one path: dired never goes through
apply_resource_op — it calls pmacs.fs.remove, which dispatches a worker
that an in-applier guard cannot see. So the LSP path has no residue and
dired's is its own. Rev 6 called it "one deferral, two paths"; that was
backwards. Also newly named: pmacs.fs.remove itself is guarded by
neither lane, since both guards sit one layer above it. Latent — zero
production callers.
The full post-delete lifecycle stays here, and #186 hands it over
explicitly rather than by omission: its Q#RD8 parks the window and
last-buffer defects and independently reaches rev 6's R4 finding that
kill_buffer and remove_buffer_and_fire clean disjoint sets; its Q#RD5
keeps reconciliation exact-path precisely so as not to promote those
defects tree-wide. That parked work is this lane's Q#DR27.
LSP failure handling: this document never made the claim — grep returns
10 lines, all about hook fan-out or dired's batch semantics, none about
WorkspaceEdit recovery. Verified the spec anyway and recorded it, since
the two framings will sit side by side: only textOnlyTransactional
degrades to abort for resource ops, transactional covers them, and LSP
3.18 states no default for a client advertising no failureHandling.
Rev 6's one adjacent claim — "refusing mid-edit leaves a half-applied
refactor" — was the load-bearing support for the deleted policy and goes
with it.
Noted without re-litigating: #186's Q#RD5 cites the ledger's "OPEN,
STALE, 153 commits behind, under re-scout" assessment of #171 in support
of taking the delete side now. That citation is stale — the re-scout is
done and this lane is integrated to ad41cf1 — but the conclusion stands
on urgency alone, so nothing about the split changes.
Status unchanged: PROPOSED, needs explicit user approval. Do not
implement, do not merge.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Lv428Fth9LRtffwJSsqH7T
Levi Neuwirth
fd7ae37071