docs: correct the disallowed-trailer enforcement claim#468
Merged
Conversation
Closes #464. decisions/0009 stated the disallowed-trailer check runs today via the DISALLOWED_TRAILER_PATTERN org secret, and runbooks/onboarding said CI rejects the trailer. A sweep of every repository's default branch found no workflow that runs the check or validates commit messages; the only implementation is a commit-lint workflow on the next branch of z-shell/zi, which has never reached a default branch. Both docs now state the ban is convention-and-review, enforced by authors rather than CI, until a shared commit-lint workflow is promoted here and rolled out. The trailer rule itself is unchanged.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Corrects documentation that previously claimed CI enforces the Co-authored-by disallowed-trailer policy, aligning the docs with the current reality that enforcement is convention-and-review (not an org-wide CI gate).
Changes:
- Updates onboarding guidance to state the
Co-authored-bytrailer ban is author-enforced (no default-branch CI gate today). - Updates ADR-0009 baseline section to clarify that neither Conventional Commits nor the disallowed-trailer rule is currently enforced org-wide in CI, and notes where the only existing implementation lives.
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| runbooks/onboarding.md | Adjusts contributor onboarding text to remove the inaccurate claim that CI rejects the disallowed trailer. |
| decisions/0009-testing-ci-strategy.md | Updates ADR-0009 baseline to reflect that commit-message/trailer enforcement is not currently an org-wide CI gate. |
Review feedback. The ADR said the sweep covered every repository; it covered the 86 active, non-fork, non-archived repositories, and only their default branches. A decision doc should not overclaim its own evidence, so the scope and the gap are now both stated.
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.
Closes #464.
What
Two docs claimed the
Co-authored-bytrailer ban is enforced in CI. It is not.decisions/0009-testing-ci-strategy.mdsaid the check "runs today via theDISALLOWED_TRAILER_PATTERNorg secret."runbooks/onboarding.mdsaid "CI rejects the disallowed-trailer pattern."A sweep of all 86 active repositories' default branches (git trees + contents API, not code search) found zero workflows that run the check or validate commit messages. The only implementation is a
commit-lintworkflow on thenextbranch ofz-shell/zi, which has never reached a default branch.Change
Both docs now state the ban is convention-and-review — enforced by authors, not CI — until a shared commit-lint workflow is promoted into this repo and rolled out. The rule itself (never add the trailer) is unchanged.
Scope
This closes the inaccuracy. Building the org-wide enforcement is deliberately not in this PR; it was the larger half of #464 and is blocked on a separate decision (the
feat/…vsfeature-<id>branch-naming contradiction betweencommit-lint.ymland the workspaceAGENTS.md). If that build-out is wanted, it should be its own issue with the branch-naming question resolved first.