Feng Ruohang
4fcdf37ce6
Restore only the six replication-specific metadata fields after trust validation, so streaming uploads retain their actual content encoding and Snowball entries do not inherit ordinary metadata from the outer archive. Include helper, authenticated PUT/COPY/multipart and Snowball regressions, plus the R7 investigation, actual Opus 5 consensus and local verification. The production change is based on PR #187 by Mikhail Khadarenka. Co-authored-by: Mikhail Khadarenka <chodorenko@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Feng Ruohang <rh@vonng.com>
2.0 KiB
This is round 2 of the actual R7 Opus review discussion. Product baseline remains 9ebe81c1b3 and NO product code has been changed. Your first actual review is /Users/vonng/.codex/worktrees/ad51/silo/docs/investigations/r7/review/opus-v1.md. It approved v1 with 9 nonblocking notes and zero blockers.
Please read the SAME frozen plan /Users/vonng/.codex/worktrees/ad51/silo/docs/investigations/r7/plan-v1.md (SHA-256 7af5705ebbfb0a375956d38dba059095dc16e24558290b1bd35a6ce85b9e1f96) and Codex's numbered replies / binding acceptance addendum /Users/vonng/.codex/worktrees/ad51/silo/docs/investigations/r7/plan-v1.dispositions.md (SHA-256 d32d30f8a420f904da6ee039f0461d6281e7da44bd805d416b4970d071f0af32). The plan+addendum is the exact v1 consensus bundle; production patch remains /Users/vonng/tmp/silo-r7-20260915-ad51/pr187.diff.
Focus this round on replies, not repeating the whole independent audit. Check the factual disagreement N6 by reading cmd/erasure-server-pool-tags_test.go lines 258-265 (tagTestCapacityDisk does exist; Grep for adapter missed it). Check N1's parity testing correction: a single REPLICA archive with an unauthorized entry rejects that entry, so equal ordinary vs replica archive uploads is the correct comparison. Check N5's narrower statement about repeated reconciliation opportunities rather than claiming an automatic continuous hot loop. N2 is now backed by /Users/vonng/tmp/silo-r7-20260915-ad51/http-baseline-v2.log. The other notes are accepted and will become assertions/docs.
Return a concise Chinese confirmation that (a) explicitly names both hashes, (b) agrees/disagrees with each disputed point N1/N5/N6 and remaining dispositions, and (c) states APPROVE or REQUEST_CHANGES and whether there are any blockers to implementing this exact v1 bundle. Do not simulate tests. No shell is available: hash checking remains the caller's responsibility. Do not attempt Write or write a Claude plan file; tools are restricted to Read/Grep/Glob and your review is the final text.