bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5
b590d25f8f
Build images / sign-extension (push) Successful in 4s
CI / lint (push) Successful in 4s
CI / extension-version (push) Successful in 2s
Build images / build-ml (push) Successful in 7s
Build images / build-agent (push) Successful in 8s
Build images / build-web (push) Successful in 6s
CI / frontend-build (push) Successful in 24s
extension / lint (push) Successful in 21s
CI / backend-lint-and-test (push) Successful in 32s
CI / integration (push) Successful in 1m50s
Milestone 362 step 2. Structural: it creates a moment between "built" and "published" for step 3's gate to occupy. No behaviour change. A refresh rebuilds against freshly resolved base images, and the web image's runtime is a line of UNPINNED Debian packages — ffmpeg, libjpeg62-turbo, libpq5, megatools — re-resolved on every build. Nothing in ci.yml can see that: its lanes run on ci-python:3.14 and install requirements.txt, and a base bump changes neither. So refreshed bytes need proving before :latest names them, and proving needs somewhere to stand. On a push nothing changes: build_ref IS channel_ref, promote is false, and the build writes the channel tag directly the way it always has. On the schedule the build writes :refresh-candidate — one moving ref per image, overwritten in place, holding a build nobody is told to pull. That is the shape rule 145 already allows for :buildcache, not the per-build tag family 318 withdrew. Both values are decided in the reuse step beside `hit`, because that step already owns "what does this job do" (build.yml's own rule, at the force branch). A promote condition derived somewhere else could disagree with the tag the build actually wrote. **The promote is a manifest PUT, not `imagetools create`.** That distinction is the whole risk in this change. `imagetools create` wraps its source in an index, and an indexed channel tag is the one thing this pipeline cannot survive: `.Image.Config.Labels` does not resolve through an index, so the fc.revision the reuse check reads back would come up empty, every later push would miss and rebuild, and nothing would go red. That is #3183, observed on run 4751 — reuse worked exactly once and the only symptom was the bill. The repoint step already excludes its own source tag for this reason; a promote that re-introduced the wrap through another door would undo that care. A manifest PUT is what "make this tag name that image" means at the registry: same bytes, same media type, identical digest, no layer transfer. It reads the result back and fails if the tag does not name what was just written — a PUT that 2xx'd and landed something else is exactly the silent-and-plausible failure this pipeline keeps producing. Every call carries a deadline (rule 156); a registry that stops answering must fail the step, not hang the weekly refresh until the job times out. Promote is UNCONDITIONAL today, deliberately. Gating it before the gate exists would leave the refresh building something and publishing nothing for as long as this milestone takes. Step 4 wraps it in the smoke suite's verdict. Not yet verified on the refresh path — that needs a scheduled run, and the lever to trigger one on demand is the next commit. This one is verified by the push path being untouched. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01TTjbZZ6JirCMSaJzQV1RhA