dtourolleandClaude Opus 5
ab0ef6a26d
Thirteen requirements were surveyed as built but untagged. Eight of them were: R3, R6, FR-DEV-1, FR-UI-6, FR-NC-6d, NFR-OPS-3, NFR-PORT-2 and NFR-SEC-3. Each was read against its full text in requirements.md and against the code before the tag was added, because a tag that is wrong is worse than an absent one — it turns a visible gap into an invisible one. The five that were refused, and why, because the reasoning is the part worth keeping: R2 carries "(figure TBD)" in its own acceptance criterion and asks for a stated prefetch margin and cache-hit rate; neither figure exists anywhere in the tree and neither quantity is measured, while TD-2 and TD-3 both describe the thumbnail path falling short of it. R5 asks for three things and the code does one. The display pipeline does run at viewport resolution, but "only visible tiles are computed" and "panning recomputes only newly exposed tiles" need a tile scheduler that does not exist — and frame_budget.rs currently argues for striking tiled computation from the interactive path rather than building it. FR-RAW-2 asks for a trait taking a SourceRef, so that a second decoder can be added without changing callers. What exists is free functions over &[u8]. That meets the requirement's stated *purpose* — the same decoder serves a local file, a SAF document and a byte range, which is exactly why it takes bytes — but there is no trait and no second implementation seam, so the requirement should probably be amended rather than tagged. NFR-ARCH-1 asks for named executors with stated thread counts. architecture.md §7.1 states the table; nothing implements it. Workers are twenty-odd ad-hoc std::thread::spawn sites, each building its own one-worker tokio runtime, with no decode pool, no GPU-submit executor and no I/O pool. The requirement's own text says R4 and NFR-P9 "assert an outcome with no stated means", and that is still true. NFR-SEC-4 is satisfied by absence — there is no telemetry — and absence has no module to tag. A tag would point at nothing. NFR-OPS-3 was the closest call of the eight taken. The store is single, separate from the catalog, survives a catalog rebuild and does not sync between devices; it has no version *field*, deliberately, and settings.rs argues why and names the condition that would need one. The substance is met and the reasoning is recorded where it belongs. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
DarkRoom
A cross-platform, non-destructive RAW photo editor for Linux and Android.
Status: early. v0.1 is a remote library viewer — see docs/milestone-v0.1.md.
Documentation
| Document | Contents |
|---|---|
| requirements.md | What the software must do — 122 numbered requirements |
| architecture.md | How it is built — crates, GPU pipeline, data model, sync |
| milestone-v0.1.md | The first buildable milestone |
| faces.md | Face detection and identity — the models, the licence problem, and what S14 measures |
Building
Desktop:
cargo run -p darkroom-desktop
Android (containerised toolchain, see docker/android):
./docker/android/build.sh cargo ndk -t arm64-v8a build --release
Current state
Working: workspace, GPU context and compute pass, adaptive Slint shell, Android cross-compilation of the core crates.
Not yet working: the zero-copy display path. The build currently uploads frames through the CPU, which is exactly what ARCH §6.1 forbids — measured at 96% of frame time at 4K. Replacing it is spike S1, the project's highest priority.
cargo run -p dr-gpu --example bench --features readback
reproduces that measurement.
Licence
GPL-3.0-or-later.