Files

tegwick 2f25f99cae Implement CE-WP-0001 Foundations: TS scaffold, lint boundaries, normalize v1, fixtures

T01 Toolchain — vite + pnpm 9.15 + React 18 + strict TS (ADR-0001).
T02 Folder layout — src/{shared,engine,anchor,source,binder,work,app}/
    mirroring the future subsystem split, with path aliases.
T03 Boundary lint — eslint-plugin-boundaries enforcing the dependency
    edges from wiki/DependencyMap.md §4; verified by a violating fixture.
T04 Canonical normalization v1 — src/shared/text/normalize.ts with
    NORMALIZE_VERSION=1; 10/10 vitest covering ligatures, CRLF, soft
    hyphens (including line-break reassembly), mixed whitespace.
T05 PDF fixture corpus — 7 user-supplied German PDFs in fixtures/pdfs/
    (gitignored binaries) plus a manifest with verbatim known-good
    quotes and page counts, ready for CE-WP-0002 selector tests.
T06 README upgrade — umbrella README points at wiki/docs/workplans
    and documents the dev workflow.
T07 ADR-0002..0006 stubs in docs/decisions/.

Toolchain end-to-end: pnpm install + lint + typecheck + test all green.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>

2026-05-25 00:13:03 +02:00

1.8 KiB

Raw Permalink Blame History

ADR-0002 — Monorepo vs polyrepo for the six subsystems

Status: proposed
Date: 2026-05-24
Workplan: CE-WP-0001-T07 (stub)

Context

The umbrella-first MVP lives entirely in citation-evidence/ under src/{shared,engine,anchor,source,binder,work,app}/. Each folder is named after its eventual extracted package. At some point — driven by an external consumer needing one subsystem, or by independent release cadence — code will move out into its sister repo.

We need a written answer to: when that moment comes, do we (a) keep one repository with pnpm workspaces, (b) split into six independent repos with published packages, or (c) something in between?

The decision affects: dependency management, release cadence, CI surface area, contributor friction, and how wiki/SharedContracts.md is enforced across the boundary.

Options

A. Single repo, pnpm workspaces
- Pros: one CI, one version of every dep, atomic cross-package PRs, easy refactors. Shared contracts enforced by the type checker.
- Cons: any consumer outside this repo needs a private registry or git-tag-based installs. Release cadence is shared.
B. Six independent repos, published packages
- Pros: clean external publish story, independent versioning. Forces the contract to be a real package boundary.
- Cons: dependency upgrades require coordinated PR trains. Refactors that span subsystems become multi-repo dances. Hard to keep SharedContracts.md in sync across repos.
C. Hybrid — monorepo with publishable workspaces
- Pros: best of both: one repo for dev, but pnpm publish from any workspace package. Tools: changesets / nx / turbo.
- Cons: more tooling to learn; per-workspace package.json cuts to maintain.

Decision

(blank — to be answered before the first subsystem extraction lands.)

Consequences

(blank)

1.8 KiB Raw Permalink Blame History