Stop tracking the committed .pyc and ignore pycache #642

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-07-07 21:47:17 +00:00 by coilyco-ops · 2 comments

coilyco-ops commented

2026-07-07 21:47:17 +00:00

Member

Depends on: none.

Context. scripts/__pycache__/lint_issue_refs.cpython-312.pyc is checked into the repo (confirmed still tracked as of this filing, and .gitignore does not cover __pycache__/ or *.pyc). A compiled Python artifact in git is a hygiene slip and the kind of thing a pre-release sweep should catch.

Proposed change.

git rm --cached scripts/__pycache__/lint_issue_refs.cpython-312.pyc and remove the directory from the working tree.
Add __pycache__/ and *.pyc to .gitignore.

Acceptance criteria.

No .pyc or __pycache__ path is tracked.
.gitignore prevents reintroduction.

Note. Related to #643 (the broader decision on whether Python dev-tooling belongs in this Go repo at all); this one is the unconditional hygiene fix regardless of that outcome.

Milestone: ward launch. Filed from the read-only director surface (she/her), part of the release-readiness issue batch.

**Depends on:** none. **Context.** `scripts/__pycache__/lint_issue_refs.cpython-312.pyc` is checked into the repo (confirmed still tracked as of this filing, and `.gitignore` does not cover `__pycache__/` or `*.pyc`). A compiled Python artifact in git is a hygiene slip and the kind of thing a pre-release sweep should catch. **Proposed change.** - `git rm --cached scripts/__pycache__/lint_issue_refs.cpython-312.pyc` and remove the directory from the working tree. - Add `__pycache__/` and `*.pyc` to `.gitignore`. **Acceptance criteria.** - No `.pyc` or `__pycache__` path is tracked. - `.gitignore` prevents reintroduction. **Note.** Related to #643 (the broader decision on whether Python dev-tooling belongs in this Go repo at all); this one is the unconditional hygiene fix regardless of that outcome. --- Milestone: ward launch. Filed from the read-only director surface (she/her), part of the release-readiness issue batch.

coilyco-ops added this to the ward launch milestone

2026-07-07 21:47:17 +00:00

coilyco-ops added the

label

2026-07-07 21:47:17 +00:00

coilyco-ops referenced this issue

2026-07-07 21:47:17 +00:00

Decide the place of Python dev-tooling in a Go repo #643

coilyco-ops commented

2026-07-09 17:38:40 +00:00

Author

Member

WARD-RESERVATION: held 🔒

reservation details

Holder: container engineer-codex-ward-642 on host kais-macbook-pro-2.local.

Reserved by ward agent --harness codex (reserved 2026-07-09T17:38:38Z). Concurrent ward agent runs are blocked until it finishes or the reservation goes stale (1h TTL). --force overrides.

Do not comment on or edit this issue to steer the run while it is reserved. The engineer seeded the body once at launch and never re-reads it, so a comment or edit reaches only human readers, never the running engineer. A correction goes to a new issue, dispatched fresh. That is the only channel that reaches a run in flight. Where the forge supports it, ward locks this conversation to make that a road-block rather than a convention (ward#494).

run seed context — what this run is carrying (ward#609)

Resolved: coilyco-flight-deck/ward#642 · branch issue-642 · harness codex · workflow pull-request-and-merge
Run: engineer-codex-ward-642 · ward v0.493.0 · dispatched 2026-07-09T17:38:38Z
Comment thread: 0 included in the pre-flight read, 0 stripped (ward's own automated comments).

Static container doctrine and seed boilerplate are identical every run and omitted here (they ride ward v0.493.0).

— Codex, via ward agent

WARD-RESERVATION: held 🔒 <details><summary>reservation details</summary> Holder: container `engineer-codex-ward-642` on host `kais-macbook-pro-2.local`. Reserved by `ward agent --harness codex` (reserved 2026-07-09T17:38:38Z). Concurrent `ward agent` runs are blocked until it finishes or the reservation goes stale (1h TTL). `--force` overrides. **Do not comment on or edit this issue to steer the run while it is reserved.** The engineer seeded the body once at launch and never re-reads it, so a comment or edit reaches only human readers, never the running engineer. A correction goes to a **new issue, dispatched fresh**. That is the only channel that reaches a run in flight. Where the forge supports it, ward locks this conversation to make that a road-block rather than a convention (ward#494). <details><summary>run seed context — what this run is carrying (ward#609)</summary> - **Resolved:** `coilyco-flight-deck/ward#642` · branch `issue-642` · harness `codex` · workflow `pull-request-and-merge` - **Run:** `engineer-codex-ward-642` · ward `v0.493.0` · dispatched `2026-07-09T17:38:38Z` - **Comment thread:** 0 included in the pre-flight read, 0 stripped (ward's own automated comments). Static container doctrine and seed boilerplate are identical every run and omitted here (they ride ward v0.493.0). </details> </details>  — Codex, via `ward agent`

coilyco-ops referenced this issue from a pull request that will close it,

2026-07-09 17:41:23 +00:00

fix(repo): ignore Python bytecode caches #825

coilyco-ops closed this issue

2026-07-09 17:41:59 +00:00

coilyco-ops commented

2026-07-09 17:42:14 +00:00

Author

Member

WARD-OUTCOME: done ✅

details

workflow: pull-request-and-merge; review summary: review gate skipped by --skip-review / --no-review-gate

Retrospective: this felt straightforward and appropriately small.
Confidence: high.
Surprises: the tracked .pyc was already gone on current main, so the only live delta was the ignore rule.
Follow-ups: none.

WARD-OUTCOME: done ✅ <details><summary>details</summary> workflow: pull-request-and-merge; review summary: review gate skipped by --skip-review / --no-review-gate Retrospective: this felt straightforward and appropriately small. Confidence: high. Surprises: the tracked `.pyc` was already gone on current `main`, so the only live delta was the ignore rule. Follow-ups: none. </details>