RFC #564: Does local-versus-published need an explicit field in the artifact?

[znerol2]

Moved from #599 so the question can be discussed before any work is scheduled. The original issue is closed and links here.

---

The question

Designs that stay inside one facility and designs meant to be shared need different handling. Should the design artifact carry an explicit visibility field, or is the split only a mirroring decision made outside the artifact?

What the plan proposes

• Section 2 proposes that local designs live only in the in-cluster Forgejo and never leave the cluster. Designs a facility chooses to publish would mirror outward.
• The plan does not propose a visibility field. Section 2 treats the split as a property of where a design lives: local designs stay local unless a facility chooses to publish them. The question is left open.
• Section 2 says persisting designs in Forgejo needs an ADR before any build. The console's Forgejo access is read-only today, so the route adds a persistence model and a security argument.

What would change the answer

• Evidence that mirroring rules kept outside the artifact are easy to get wrong, for example a private design copied out by mistake. That would favour a field that mirroring tooling can check.
• A need to move a design between facilities while preserving its visibility intent.
• A decision that publishing always happens through a separate repository, which would make a field redundant.

Links

• Discussion: https://github.com/orgs/dmfdeploy/discussions/564
• Plan: https://github.com/dmfdeploy/dmfdeploy/blob/main/docs/plans/DMF%20Media%20Workload%20Design%20Canvas%20Plan.md

This is a request for comment. Answering it does not start any work.