golem15/msd-core
3
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions 1 Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
Files
a9a7a328e6e9ec5bc494b9d8862fbe5cd79c185d
msd-core/docs/prd/209-readme-continuity-release-update.md
Jakub Zych a9a7a328e6 refactor: hard-fork GSD -> MSD (Make Software Done) 
Mechanical rename produced by scripts/msd-rename.cjs: gsd/Gsd/GSD -> msd/Msd/MSD
across contents and paths, upstream package/repo coordinates -> @golem15/msd-core
and golem15com/msd-core. Deep links into upstream history, sibling upstream
packages, the GSD-2 import feature, CHANGELOG.md and .changeset/ are kept as-is.

Hand edits on top: MSD block-letter banner and logos, LICENSE copyright line,
package/plugin identity, regenerated lockfile, install-tree fixtures, derived
registries and benchmark baseline; migration checksum baseline re-locked
(MSD keeps its own install state, so no install had applied the old sums);
sort-order and regex-escaped expectations in tests adjusted.
2026-10-06 01:47:40 +02:00

2.1 KiB
Raw Blame History

PRD: README Continuity And Release Communications Update

Linked Issue

  • Closes #209

Problem

The top-level README still mixes legacy transition language, personal attribution, and outdated migration framing. Users need one clear source of truth for:

  • canonical repository and package identities
  • current maintainer ownership/governance
  • migration guidance away from legacy upstream artifacts
  • security and audit status references

Goals

  1. Remove legacy personal maintainer attribution from README narrative sections.
  2. Present open-gsd continuity messaging in concise, team-owned language.
  3. Provide explicit migration guidance from legacy packages to @opengsd/*.
  4. Reference public announcement and security-audit discussions directly.
  5. Keep changes docs-only and non-behavioral.

Non-Goals

  • Any runtime, CLI, or workflow behavior changes.
  • Any package publishing process changes.
  • Any new security policy implementation beyond documentation updates.

Scope

  • README.md top continuity notice
  • README.md "Why" narrative section rewrite
  • release/continuity cross-links and wording cleanup

User Stories

  • As a new user, I can quickly identify which repo/package is canonical.
  • As an existing user, I can safely migrate away from legacy package names.
  • As a security-conscious user, I can find the public audit status and continuity rationale in one place.

Acceptance Criteria

  1. README contains a continuity notice naming golem15com/msd-core as canonical.
  2. README removes personal legacy attribution in origin-story prose.
  3. README strongly recommends migration away from legacy artifacts.
  4. README links to Discussions #109 and #119.
  5. README states current audit posture with "no known active exploit" language.

Risks

  • Overstating security claims beyond published evidence.
    • Mitigation: keep wording scoped to publicly posted announcement text.
  • Migration warning language may be interpreted as policy rather than recommendation.
    • Mitigation: phrase as a strong recommendation based on ownership and governance reality.

Rollout

  1. Update README content.
  2. Open docs PR linked to #209.
  3. Run CI and merge once green.
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink