Pavitra wrote: >> 5994 D 1 3.0 Murphy Loose ID numbers > SELL(1VP - AGAINST). Why is this useful? To assign CFJ numbers in the > 10,000s to junk cases?
De facto assignment of ID numbers generally follows the order in which they were initiated (except for criminal cases; I file intent and support in separate sub-folders until the actual initiation occurs, then enter them into the database as a group). De jure assignment of ID numbers follows the order in which I announce the de facto assignments in some fashion. Thus, technically, many of them are invalid; they're still reasonably unambiguous referents, but the point of formalizing them in the first place is badly muddled. For proposals and CFJs, strict ordering doesn't really affect anything, it's just a convenience. For rule numbers, it affects precedence, so the requirement of strict ordering is retained. (Actually, it should probably be strengthened; if the Rulekeepor wishes, e can assign ID numbers out of chronological order, up to the limit of being replaced and/or deputised for). >> 5995 D 1 3.0 Murphy Fix multi-method dependent actions > SELL(1VP - AGAINST). This is one minor bugfix buried in lots of > unnecessary and likely broken refactoring. How is it unnecessary? >> 6002 O 1 1.7 Murphy Refactor judicial timing > endorse Murphy; I suspect IRRELEVANT may be broken, see a-d. I disagree, and in any case I believe it can afford to wait until a test case arises in practice (i.e. the relevance of a case changes between initiation and judgement).
