docs: state the public-repo rule as a positive test - #89
Merged
Conversation
The rule was framed as a list of exclusions, which described the shape of what it excluded. A reader of this repository is a stranger; a list of what must stay out of it is a description of what exists elsewhere. Stated positively instead: everything here is about the product, and the check is to read your own commit message as a stranger who has only run the binary. That covers the same ground without naming any of it, and it generalises to cases nobody thought to list. Also widens the scope, which was understated. It named code, comments, commit messages, docs and tests, and omitted pull request titles and bodies and branch names — which are equally world-readable. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Replaces #87, which is closed. Same file content, rebuilt so the history reads cleanly.
The public-repo section was framed as a list of exclusions. A reader of this repository is a stranger, and a list of what must stay out of it is a description of what exists elsewhere — so the framing worked against itself.
Stated positively instead:
That covers the same ground without naming any of it, and it generalises to cases nobody thought to enumerate.
Also widens the scope, which was understated: the old text named code, comments, commit messages, docs and tests, and omitted pull request titles and bodies and branch names — equally world-readable, and where the real leaks turned out to be.
Text only.