The one genuinely new finding from Copilot round 9; the other four were
re-reports of rounds 7 and 8 against an earlier state of the files, verified
already fixed in e956d498 / edddc6c9.
This message has now been wrong in both directions. Round 5 replaced "it
expires on its own after 10s" — false whenever the same `rmdir` that blocked
us also blocks stale takeover, which reclaims through that identical call —
with "remove it by hand". That is false the other way: `proper-lockfile`
forwards whatever the filesystem returned, so a transient failure can clear,
another Inspector can legitimately acquire the path afterwards, and an
operator following the advice then deletes a *live* holder's lock. Same class
of hazard as the `ERELEASED` case in round 7: guidance that destroys the
exclusion of a process that did nothing wrong.
Nothing here can tell a permanent refusal from a passing one, so it no longer
claims to. It reports what happened, says the lock may or may not clear and
why, and states the two conditions the operator can check for themselves —
saves still failing, and no other Inspector running — rather than asserting
an outcome this code does not know.
Behavioural only in what it tells a human; the locking path is unchanged.
The test asserts both conditions are present and that the expiry promise is
absent, so neither blanket version can come back.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01JTHVxSu8AUgHRLvo1ntZ8H
Signed-off-by: cliffhall <cliff@futurescale.com>
31feed970c