Tutorial: Process Report — adopting-updates, 2026-06-26

Process Report — adopting-updates, 2026-06-26

date: 2026-06-26 procedure: adopting-updates node: random-ai-prompt outcome: completed hub_version: see hub/VERSION at run time hub_commit: 42263fe

Process Report — adopting-updates, 2026-06-26

A full, honest account of running a fairyfox system procedure. The point is to improve the system — so say what was rough even if the run succeeded. Voice: direct, matter-of-fact, no hype. Standard: ../reference/process-reports.md.

Outcome in one line

Checked the fairyfox system for updates, then (on the owner's go-ahead in the same session) adopted the two genuinely-new standards — process-reports and the standards compliance audit — plus the ## Verify sections on git-workflow and versioning. The git-flow release model was already adopted, so no release-mechanics change was needed.

What was done

  1. Refreshed the read-only hub clone at assets/references/fairyfox.io/. --ff-only refused because upstream dev had been force-pushed (c5659f8 → 42263fe); recovered by git fetch + git reset --hard origin/dev on the mirror only (it's a disposable, git-ignored reference clone — no project history touched).
  2. Diffed hub/standards/ + hub/templates/ old→new (both commits were still retained, so a real git diff was possible rather than a blind file compare).
  3. Reported the three change themes — process-reports, compliance audit, git-flow wording — and where each would land, then stopped and waited.
  4. On go-ahead, adopted:
    • new notes/fairyfox-reports/ folder (this report + a README);
    • new project-side reference notes reference/process-reports.md and reference/compliance.md (copies of the standards in the project's voice);
    • ## Verify sections appended to reference/git-workflow.md and reference/versioning.md;
    • the "hub also reads notes/fairyfox-reports/" paragraph + a process-report step added to reference/cross-project-sync.md;
    • CLAUDE.md updated: the standing fairyfox flow now ends with a process report and names the compliance audit;
    • notes/README.md (folder map, structure, maintenance-loop trigger row), status.md, the changelog, and the session log.

No VERSION bump and no main release: this is a notes/process-doc adoption with no code or runtime change, which the project's own rule excludes from the version number.

What went well

  • The old hub commit was still in the clone after the reset, so the old→new diff was exact — far better than comparing the refreshed clone against guesses about the last state.
  • The biggest standard in the diff (git-flow → --no-ff tagged releases) was already adopted here, so most of the churn was confirm-no-op, not rework.

What went wrong / friction

  • --ff-only is the documented refresh command, but a hub force-push makes it fail every time. The runbook mentions a re-clone fallback; in practice a fetch + reset --hard origin/dev on the mirror is the lighter fix. A node following the literal command with no fallback in front of it would just hit fatal: Not possible to fast-forward, aborting and stall.
  • The check and the adopt happened in one session. The standard wants a report per run; this run was really "check" immediately followed by "adopt." One combined adopting-updates report (this file) covers both rather than splitting hairs, but the runbook doesn't explicitly say which to write when a check converts straight into an adopt.
  • Chicken-and-egg on the report itself. The new standard says even a check-only run writes a report into notes/fairyfox-reports/ — but on a check-only run that folder doesn't exist yet and creating it is itself an act of adoption, which the check-only flow forbids. Here it resolved cleanly (the check became an adopt), but a pure check-only run against a not-yet-adopted node can't satisfy the rule without adopting first.

Suggestions / feedback

  • In cross-project-sync.md / adopting-updates.md, make the force-push refresh fallback a first-class step next to the --ff-only line (git fetch + reset --hard origin/dev for the reference clone only), not just a parenthetical — force-pushes on hub dev are evidently routine.
  • Clarify the check-only report location for un-adopted nodes: either say a check-only run on a node that hasn't adopted process-reports yet reports inline and defers the written report until adoption, or treat folder-creation as allowed even in check-only.
  • Reassure the owner about repo safety as part of the adopt, unprompted. After the adopt, the owner asked "is my repository alright online and locally? what did you do why?" — the run had touched a feature/ branch, merged to dev, pushed dev, and (separately) reset --hard the git-ignored hub mirror, and that combination read as alarming without a plain summary. The reset --hard on assets/references/ especially needs loud framing: it is the reference clone, not the project, and never rewrites project history. Suggest the adopting-updates runbook end with a standard "what changed, where" close-out: local vs origin for dev/main (identical?), that main was untouched, working tree clean, and an explicit "the only reset --hard was on the disposable mirror." A node should volunteer this, not wait to be asked.

Environment

Windows + PowerShell (the bash sandbox is banned in this repo for false-truncation risk). Node 24, ESM. Repo is a fairyfox node whose notes/, CLAUDE.md, VERSION, and assets/references/ live at the repo root, while the actual engine + SPA live under engine-v3/. Hand-authored notes (no generator). Arrived on dev at VERSION 2.7.0; git-flow (--no-ff tagged releases, master already renamed to main) was already in place.