Repository navigation
Conversation
Use native copy-on-write worktrees with fail-closed lifecycle handling, workspace-scoped Linux recovery, published Riftri packaging, and real-filesystem and artifact verification.
Kinfe123
marked this pull request as ready for review
October 8, 2026 09:47
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Purpose
Fork-only verification of the Riftri integration against T3 revision
30cc788975500a8c00d32a50f348174d1ce578d1. This PR targetsfarming-labs/t3code:verify/upstream-30cc7889, not the upstream repository or this fork'smain. The separate base keeps the comparison focused on Riftri instead of including 76 unrelated upstream commits.The earlier integration was merged in this fork's #1. Its green CI does not prove compatibility with this newer base; this PR reruns the complete checks and artifact tests.
Changes
riftri@0.6.3for supported worktree creation. Agents receive ordinary Git linked worktrees; no prompt, skill, shell hook, or global Git replacement is required. Independently executed terminal Git commands are unchanged.auto, explicitgit, and strictriftristorage modes. Ordinary-Git fallback is allowed only before mutation for supported policy refusals or remote-branch guessing. Failed or uncertain native mutations remain fail-closed.status.showUntrackedFiles=no. Add the hidden-file regression to the real native lifecycle test too.Verification before opening
Local checks on integration commit
9d28a278e9a787564e3022ca2ff42722dec871eepassed:The fixture is three worktrees containing a 32 MiB incompressible payload plus 257 text files. Ordinary Git allocated 107,487,232 bytes; Riftri allocated 36,171,776 bytes: 66.35% less physical storage. These are tracked-file savings, not shared dependency installs or build caches.
Creation was slower, not faster: Git took 308/280/323 ms versus Riftri 927/636/645 ms for cold/cached/cached creation. These are single-run measurements, not latency guarantees.
Verified CI evidence
All 19 jobs passed on the exact PR head
06d16d94dd91cee4802efc52358a0420d1ceab57: CI run. No repository-wide checks were run locally.cli-external-packagestests passed.Fresh CI measurements use the same three-view fixture, including the cold base:
Creation remained slower. APFS Git/Riftri times were 192/183/182 ms versus 611/332/357 ms; Linux times were 89/71/69 ms versus 366/291/203 ms. These are single-run diagnostics, not speedup claims.
The real-filesystem integration matrix covers APFS and OverlayFS, not a T3-on-ReFS end-to-end claim. The verified product/source tree matches
feat/riftri-upstream-ready; the verification branch differs only in its CI workflow. No upstream PR or merge is requested here.Model: GPT-5. Harness: Codex.