didericis
18f190b7e3
Stage 2 of the docker-free Firecracker backend (#348): stop building the fixed infra image on the launch host. The infra VM's rootfs is host- and bottle-agnostic (authorized_keys + guest IP ride the kernel cmdline, not the rootfs), so it's built once off-host and published as a versioned, ready-to- boot ext4; the launch host downloads + verifies + boots it — no Docker, no image tooling, just HTTP + gunzip. - infra_artifact.py: version = content hash of the rootfs inputs (the shipped bot_bottle package + the three Dockerfiles + the init), so a launch host pulls the artifact matching its code and a content change can't silently boot a stale rootfs. Pull + sha256-verify (fail-closed) + gunzip from a Gitea generic package; base/owner/token configurable, default this Gitea. - infra_vm.ensure_built/boot default to the pull path; BOT_BOTTLE_INFRA_BUILD= local keeps the docker build-from-source path for iterating on Dockerfiles. - publish_infra.py: the off-host half — builds the images with Docker, mke2fs the rootfs (with buildah slack), gzips, and PUTs it to the generic package. Rollout note: default=pull means a launch 404s until an artifact is published; until the Gitea packages endpoint is enabled + an artifact published, use BOT_BOTTLE_INFRA_BUILD=local. Freeze/migrate's remaining docker use is a separate PR. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01UoEZHDjv84ChoZbozQERhJ
Product requirement docs
One PRD per feature: what to build, why, and how it's scoped. The PRD
is the durable spec — it should stand on its own without a Gitea issue
thread (see ../README.md for when a PRD is the right
document vs. a research note or a decision record).
Naming and numbering
New PRDs use a prd-new-<kebab-title>.md placeholder name while the PR
is open. On merge to main a CI workflow assigns the next sequential
number (0024-…, 0025-…), renames the file, and updates the title
header. Numbers are never reused; gaps are fine.
Once numbered, the filename stays fixed for the life of the doc.
Status
The Status: line near the top tracks the PRD's lifecycle:
- Draft — proposed, not yet shipped.
- Active — the design has shipped to
mainand is in effect. - Superseded by PRD NNNN — replaced by a later PRD; kept for history.
- Retargeted by PRD NNNN — folded into a later PRD's scope.
Format
# PRD prd-new: <short title> ← placeholder; CI fills in the number on merge
- **Status:** Draft
- **Author:** <who>
- **Created:** YYYY-MM-DD
- **Issue:** #<n> # optional — convenience pointer only
## Summary
One paragraph: what this builds and the pain it solves.
## Problem
The current state and why it's inadequate.
## Goals / Success Criteria
Bullets a reviewer can check the finished work against.
## Non-goals
What this explicitly does not do — and won't, to head off scope creep.
## Scope
In scope / out of scope, when the boundary needs spelling out.
## Design
How it works: schema, data flow, diagrams, algorithms as needed.
## Implementation chunks
Ordered, mergeable steps (optional; for multi-PR features).
## Open questions
Unresolved decisions — resolve or fold into Design before shipping.
Sections are a guide, not a straitjacket: drop the ones a given PRD doesn't need (a small change rarely needs Scope or Implementation chunks) and add others where they help (e.g. Testing strategy, Alternatives considered, References). Keep the rationale self-contained — inline the reasoning rather than linking out to an issue thread, so the PRD survives a move off Gitea.