Repository navigation
docs: align evidence and version terminology - #3
Merged
Merged
Conversation
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
What changed
--strictexit-code behaviorWhy
The documentation contained one direct evidence contradiction: the benchmark methodology described testing as future work even though fixture-based testing had been completed. Several other documents also used obsolete phase terminology or described implemented behavior as planned.
This update aligns the repository narrative with current behavior while keeping unsupported numeric claims out of the repository until their source artifacts are available.
Validation
git diff --checkpassedfencier verifycould not start because the Windows Node host aborts during initialization withAssertion failed: ncrypto::CSPRNG(nullptr, 0)