didericis
3e7440de69
Completes the matrix: all five distros now pass both `test` and `test-ready`,
validated end-to-end on the delphi KVM host (QEMU 11.0.2).
Alpine — the generic_ cloud image silently ignores a NoCloud seed, so cloud-init
never ran. Fixes, all confirmed by booting:
- switch to the nocloud_ image variant (built for a local seed),
- start sshd from a runcmd (OpenRC doesn't auto-start it after key injection),
- give the account a throwaway password — Alpine's non-PAM sshd refuses pubkey
auth for a cloud-init-locked ('!') account, unlike the UsePAM=yes distros,
- install sudo via cloud-init packages: (the minimal image has none, so the
test-ready `sudo apk add` prereq failed).
Also add instance-id to the NoCloud meta-data, which the nocloud image requires.
NixOS — publishes no downloadable cloud qcow2 (Hydra builds AMIs), so the harness
now BUILDS one with nixos-generators (new scripts/linux-install-test-nixos.nix:
cloud-init for the key, flakes enabled, deliberately no python/git/pipx).
ensure_base_image branches to build_nixos_image for the nixos distro. The
test-ready prereq uses `nix profile install` pinned to nixpkgs/nixos-24.11,
because the guest's default unstable registry builds pipx from source and its
test suite currently fails to build.
Validation: 10/10 cells pass, clean teardown, no leaked VMs or run dirs.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Research notes
Investigations into a question or a design space — landscape surveys,
tradeoff analyses, "should we do X or Y," assessments of an approach
before (or instead of) committing it to a PRD. A research note is where
the thinking lives; a PRD is where a decided feature lives, and a
decision record is where a settled choice lives (see
../README.md for picking between them).
Notes are opinionated. They reach a conclusion rather than dumping a neutral survey — the point is to move a decision forward and leave a durable record of why it went the way it did.
Naming
kebab-case-topic.md, named by subject and not numbered (unlike
PRDs and decision records). Pick a name that says what was
investigated: bash-vs-python-vs-go.md, pipelock-assessment.md,
issue-tracking-vs-in-repo-decision-history.md.
Shape (freeform)
There's no fixed template — use whatever structure fits the question. In practice most notes share a loose shape:
- Open with the question — a sentence or two on what's being investigated and why it came up.
- Lead with the verdict — a
## Summarynear the top stating the conclusion, so a reader gets the answer without reading the whole thing. - Then the analysis — whatever the argument needs: comparison tables, per-option sections, failure-mode walkthroughs, the axes that actually matter.
- End with a recommendation when the note exists to drive a decision.
Keep the reasoning self-contained and grounded: cite sources, link files and PRDs, and prefer concrete evidence from this repo over generic claims — a note should stand on its own without a chat log or a Gitea thread. When a note's recommendation gets acted on, capture the resulting decision in a PRD or a decision record; the note stays as the "why we looked into it," not the system of record for the choice.