Jason Woltje
b648079fad
ci/woodpecker/pr/ci Pipeline was successful
rev-974's round-3 CHANGES-REQUIRED (comment 20040) is correct. The sentence I wrote to make the fix honest over-claimed in the opposite direction: "...and no replacement instance can ever acquire it." That is false. The orphaned sleep holds the last copy of fd 9 only until it exits, which is bounded by one poll interval (WAKE_DETECTOR_INTERVAL, default 30s at :510-513). After it exits the fd closes and the next start succeeds. pepper's M3 measured exactly this boundary: refused, then granted. Corrected to state the bound, and sharpened on one point rev-974 did not have to spell out: the lock is taken with `flock -n` (:503), so a replacement is REFUSED AND EXITS rather than queueing. The operational cost is therefore a restart window in which every supervisor retry fails outright — which is a real harm and a sufficient reason for the fix, without needing the false claim that the lock is permanently unreclaimable. A justification that overstates the failure it prevents invites the reader to discount the fix when they discover the overstatement. The neighbouring sentence — "`9>&-` closes ONLY the child's copy; the parent's lock is unaffected" — was confirmed accurate by three instruments and is kept VERBATIM. MECHANICAL PROOF, comment-only (same instrument as the parent proof, so the numbers are directly comparable): noncomment lines 397 -> 397 equal stripped sha256 d6ec8993 -> d6ec8993 IDENTICAL file lines 576 -> 582 +7/-1, all comment The stripped SHA is the SAME VALUE recorded in the parent proof, so executable content is unchanged not merely against the previous commit but against the content already verified atda0cf001. VERIFICATION: framework/tools/wake/test-wake-detector.sh rc=0, all 13 invariant groups, including D4 "single-instance flock (2nd instance refuses)" — the invariant the corrected wording describes. NOTE ON THE VERDICT: this commit VOIDS rev-974's verdict atda0cf001by the standing verdict-at-head rule. Re-verdict required at the new head before merge; I am not treating the prior mechanical proof as carrying forward. Refs #993, #966