daniel/danos
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 4 Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects 1 Releases Wiki Activity

docs: correct a stale ordering note — D9 landed without D7

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Daniel Samson
2026-08-08 19:26:48 +01:00
parent cb8d1e2e51
commit 637bf2e0b1
1 changed files with 4 additions and 4 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
docs/bounds-track-plan.md
+4 -4
View File
@@ -56,11 +56,11 @@ no longer exists and the suite is 118/118. Questions 6 and 7 dissolved, so the o
now **D0 → D5 → D6 → D8**, which deletes `maximum_children_per_parent`. Only D7 is still
blocked, on question 8, and it is needed for neither ceiling. D10 is optional.
Ordering is load-bearing. D1–D2 build and prove the mechanism with nothing depending on
Ordering is load-bearing. D1–D2 built and proved the mechanism with nothing depending on
it. D4–D5 move each claimant across one at a time, so the suite stays green throughout
and a regression names the driver that caused it. D6 is the flag day. D7 must precede
D9, because zero-resource children are the case that sidesteps containment and so the
reason a shared cap was needed at all.
and a regression names the driver that caused it. D6 is the flag day. (The original
"D7 must precede D9" no longer holds: the per-holder quota bounds zero-resource children
as well as anything else, so D9 landed without it.)
**D3 merged into D4** (found while implementing, recorded rather than worked around).
The two cannot be separated: the moment the manager claims a device, any driver still