Set release boundaries for the focused Git commit

Operational risks for the focused commit for evaluation-script change center on staging a .env or credentials file beside the evaluation change, plus the earlier failure mode (accidentally staging both files, or committing from the wrong directory). Safety lives in executable gates, allowlists, redaction, and a named owner—not in a warning paragraph under an unsafe function.

git status --short | grep -E '\.env|credentials|id_rsa' && echo 'BLOCK: secrets staged' || echo 'no secret paths in status'

Expected evidence: no secret paths in status. A failed assertion means stop, investigate, and do not publish the focused Git commit.

Name who can disable the feature, what data is retained, and how to roll back to the last known good artifact. Pin the reviewed configuration (versions, thresholds, allowlists) so “what shipped” is reconstructable for git-basics.

Write the release blocker as a predicate, not a feeling: “Do not ship the focused Git commit if staging a .env or credentials file beside the evaluation change.” Pair it with a passing control that shows the reviewed configuration still works for repo with dirty train.py (eval) and README.md (docs). Name an owner and a rollback handle (git tag, docs_version, previous image).

Security pages must not paste the happy-path demo. If your gate code looks like the implementation page, replace it with a deny/allow check aimed at staging a .env or credentials file beside the evaluation change.

State the data retention rule in one line (what is stored, for how long, who can read it). Then state the kill switch (env flag, config pin, or feature owner). The focused Git commit is not shippable without both, even when git diff --cached --name-only shows only train.py before commit looks healthy.

At the safety and operations stage for git-basics, the job is narrower than finishing a product demo. You are creating one progressive evidence piece about repo with dirty train.py (eval) and README.md (docs) that later pages inherit without redefining success. Keep that fixture small enough to inspect by hand, keep outputs copy-pasteable as text, and refuse to narrate this baseline as if it were a production SLA: git status and git diff before any add.

For this page specifically, success looks like an executable deny gate for the lab-specific threat while still centering the user decision to land only the tested train.py evaluation change while README edits stay unstaged. If you cannot point to a file, command, or assertion that proves that for the focused Git commit, stay on this page instead of advancing.

Git glossary

Previous · Next