2026-10-27 — Peers-cap review notes deferred past its landing (lane D, facilitator on delegation, 2026-10-27): the rebased review pair of fix/peers-cap-warning returned LAND-WITH-NITS from both reviewers with no blocker. Its one display gap, the ceiling's note missing from the text form, is fixed on the branch. Three notes are captured and deferred to a follow-up change: iss-2610272352153282 (one sibling named two ways), iss-2610272352168723 (clashing sibling names merged) and iss-2610272352179242 (the cap refusal drops the listing note and labels copies without a holder filter). Grounds: none changes a count, a refusal or a reservation, only how a hold's copy is named; peers-cap resolves the major that blocks the release (iss-2610231004140527); and the first needs one worktree listing shared with the default branch's sibling naming, a refactor across both that wants its own review rather than a fifth round on this one.

Frontmatter

.abcd/work/decisions/dcn-2610272352249601-peers-cap-review-notes-deferred-past-its.md
open on GitHub ↗ · commit history ↗

mentions4

• iss-2610231004140527The live-reservation cap is counted per GitHub login across every session, copy and account that pushes under it (internal/core/claim/crowd.go), while each machine sets its own ceiling in reservation.max_live. On 2026-10-23 six interactive sessions on one login reached 30 live holds and abcd-43's reserve was refused at 10:40; abcd-ae raised the ceiling to 40 by hand, the third raise since 10-22 (hand-rolled coordination log, 10:40 and 10:41). A drain run under another account that pushes with the same login is counted against the same holder under its own, possibly lower, ceiling, which no session here can read, so the interactive sessions can hold the drain at its cap with nothing on either side saying so. Graded minor when filed, because the drain waits at the cap rather than failing (iss-2610161015371794), and whether the drain shares this login and at what ceiling is not yet confirmed; it was confirmed the same day, and the grade raised (below). This revisits the ruling recorded in iss-2610170717515674 (one ceiling per person, raised in the machine's configuration); related: iss-2610160925028248 (one reservation per record spends the cap) and iss-2610161457209287 (holds do not name their copy).
• iss-2610272352153282abcd peers names one sibling worktree two ways in a single listing: a reservation row and the ceiling show its folder name (siblingCopies, a capped worktree listing excluding this copy by key), while a release hold or refusal from the same worktree shows its full home-redacted path (siblingCopy, an uncapped streamed listing excluding this copy by path), and a copied worktree reads as 'lane-c or lane-d' on one side and whichever path was found first on the other
• iss-2610272352168723Two sibling worktrees whose directories share a name and a parent's name (x/a/lane-b and y/a/lane-b) both read as 'a/lane-b' in abcd peers, and the ceiling counts them as one sibling 'a/lane-b' with both holds: the total stays right, but which worktree holds what is lost
• iss-2610272352179242The live-reservation cap refusal drops the reason the sibling worktrees could not be listed (Snapshot.SiblingsUnread), so a sibling's hold is grouped under elsewhere with no word why, and its copy labels are keyed by record id with no holder or live-state filter, so another holder's tip on the same record could relabel the reader's own