Repository navigation
docs(signals): U-5 filed as #4071, deferred past 2.0 - #4072
Conversation
The fix re-derives a held stale reader before its hold lands; the prototype costs +179 B minified on the core floor and breaks two pinned orders, so it waits. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011JxYhsd8CeAgCp6h5DU8ic
|
# Conflicts: # packages/signals/docs/OPEN-QUESTIONS.md
Size (brotli, eager entry chunk)
|
Coverage Report for CI Build 38646238809Warning Build has drifted: This PR's base is out of sync with its target branch, so coverage data may include unrelated changes. Coverage remained the same at 77.515%Details
Uncovered ChangesNo uncovered changes found. Coverage RegressionsNo coverage regressions found. Coverage Stats
💛 - Coveralls |
Merging this PR will improve performance by 6.78%
|
| Benchmark | BASE |
HEAD |
Efficiency | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ⚡ | memo + sync render effect only (reference) |
30.6 ms | 28.6 ms | +6.78% |
Tip
Curious why performance improved? Comment @codspeedbot explain why performance improved on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.
Comparing docs/u5-filed (baf3270) with next (fb8558c)
Summary
Before: the U-5 row in
OPEN-QUESTIONS.mdlisted U-5 as still to build.After: the U-5 row says U-5 is filed as #4071 and deferred past 2.0, with the prototype's cost (+179 B minified on the core floor, two pinned orders broken). The answer line is updated to match. The F2 pin's comment points at the issue, and the pin stays
it.fails.The maintainer chose to drop U-5 from the build order and file it, because a fix sits on the core seam that every app pays for.
How did you test this change?
Docs and a test comment only.
node packages/signals/scripts/rules-index.mjsregenerates the index with no change, and prettier is clean.🤖 Generated with Claude Code
https://claude.ai/code/session_011JxYhsd8CeAgCp6h5DU8ic
Generated by Claude Code