Repository navigation
docs: describe next publisher retirement - #1295
Conversation
Codex Review SummaryThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 39bff2e66a
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
markstuart-oai
left a comment
markstuart-oai
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed the complete one-file change at c8844ec1a1b6cc6e1f88debf82074dd876138552. The earlier sequencing finding is resolved: the model retains the publisher's inputs, authority, trust checks and failure hypothesis whenever its files exist, and makes that component inapplicable only after canonical deletion. Hosted rules remain a separate verification step.
The revised wording covers both this pre-retirement tree and the generated retirement in #1291. Runtime, ordinary CI, cache, release and disclosure controls remain unchanged. No actionable findings.
Source-only documentation review with an independent pass; no local tests or builds ran. Hosted CI is still running.
The security model currently assumes the legacy publisher always exists, which becomes false after canonical next regeneration. Make that boundary conditional on the workflow and publisher files in the reviewed revision. Preserve its threat hypothesis and privileged-status controls while present; explicitly retire that component after deletion and retain the separate hosted-rules warning.
This documentation baseline supports #1291 without changing runtime, dependencies, workflows, release controls, or disclosure policy.
Validation: basic review of the complete one-file diff and
git diff --check. Both pre-removal and post-removal cases are explicitly covered.