Context
While finalising QEP-2 (#2) alongside the in-development QEP-4 (#8), the QEP-2 draft initially forward-referenced QEP-4: relative links to a file not yet on main, plus restated mechanics (origin labels, task /-namespaces, the prune skip-rule) whose final shape is exactly what #8's review is deciding. That coupling has two failure modes: dangling links on main until the downstream QEP merges, and the risk that its review reshapes the mechanics after the upstream standard is Accepted, forcing an immediate version-bump amendment.
Convention adopted in practice
The QEP that creates a dependency ships the amendments to the standards it touches, in its own acceptance PR. QEP-2 is now self-contained (forward references removed in 091eeea); the qep-0004 branch preserves the removed hook wording in an Amendments to QEP-2 section and re-applies it — in whatever form #8's review settles — when it lands, bumping QEP-2's version if QEP-2 is Accepted by then.
This is QEP-1's amend-in-place model with the dependency arrow pointing the right way: reference and target land atomically, main never holds a dangling cross-QEP link, and reviewers of the downstream QEP see its full blast radius (including the upstream edits) as one diff. The existing related: / Related-row CI lockstep check validates the pairing in the landing PR, where both files exist, so even its in-flight warning path goes quiet.
Proposed QEP-1 amendment
One sentence in QEP-1's process section, roughly: a QEP that depends on or extends an existing QEP is not forward-referenced by it while in development; instead the new QEP's acceptance PR carries the amendments to the standards it touches (version-bumped per the amendment rule), so cross-references land atomically.
When to act
Per the second-instance rule (as applied to the companion-appendix convention), this stays practice until a second dependent-QEP pair appears. QEP-2 ↔ QEP-4 is the first instance; fold the sentence into QEP-1 (with a version bump) when the next pair shows up, and close this issue against that amendment.
Context
While finalising QEP-2 (#2) alongside the in-development QEP-4 (#8), the QEP-2 draft initially forward-referenced QEP-4: relative links to a file not yet on
main, plus restated mechanics (origin labels, task/-namespaces, the prune skip-rule) whose final shape is exactly what #8's review is deciding. That coupling has two failure modes: dangling links onmainuntil the downstream QEP merges, and the risk that its review reshapes the mechanics after the upstream standard is Accepted, forcing an immediate version-bump amendment.Convention adopted in practice
The QEP that creates a dependency ships the amendments to the standards it touches, in its own acceptance PR. QEP-2 is now self-contained (forward references removed in 091eeea); the qep-0004 branch preserves the removed hook wording in an Amendments to QEP-2 section and re-applies it — in whatever form #8's review settles — when it lands, bumping QEP-2's
versionif QEP-2 is Accepted by then.This is QEP-1's amend-in-place model with the dependency arrow pointing the right way: reference and target land atomically,
mainnever holds a dangling cross-QEP link, and reviewers of the downstream QEP see its full blast radius (including the upstream edits) as one diff. The existingrelated:/ Related-row CI lockstep check validates the pairing in the landing PR, where both files exist, so even its in-flight warning path goes quiet.Proposed QEP-1 amendment
One sentence in QEP-1's process section, roughly: a QEP that depends on or extends an existing QEP is not forward-referenced by it while in development; instead the new QEP's acceptance PR carries the amendments to the standards it touches (version-bumped per the amendment rule), so cross-references land atomically.
When to act
Per the second-instance rule (as applied to the companion-appendix convention), this stays practice until a second dependent-QEP pair appears. QEP-2 ↔ QEP-4 is the first instance; fold the sentence into QEP-1 (with a version bump) when the next pair shows up, and close this issue against that amendment.