Skip to content

fix(docs): correct ADR cross-references in ADR-006 Related field#355

Open
sebastianricaldoni wants to merge 1 commit intoruvnet:mainfrom
sebastianricaldoni:fix/adr-006-related-references
Open

fix(docs): correct ADR cross-references in ADR-006 Related field#355
sebastianricaldoni wants to merge 1 commit intoruvnet:mainfrom
sebastianricaldoni:fix/adr-006-related-references

Conversation

@sebastianricaldoni
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Summary

  • ADR-003 (KV Cache) was wrong — ADR-003 is SIMD Optimization Strategy; KV Cache is ADR-004
  • ADR-005 (LoRA Adapter Loading) was wrong — ADR-005 is WASM Runtime Integration; no dedicated LoRA Adapter Loading ADR exists in the repo

The bottom "Related Decisions" section of the same file already correctly referenced ADR-004, making the frontmatter table internally inconsistent.

Changes

docs/adr/ADR-006-memory-management.md — one line in the frontmatter table:

- | **Related** | ADR-003 (KV Cache), ADR-005 (LoRA Adapter Loading) |
+ | **Related** | ADR-004 (KV Cache), ADR-005 (WASM Runtime Integration) |

Test plan

  • Verify ADR-003 title: SIMD Optimization Strategy
  • Verify ADR-004 title: KV Cache Management Strategy
  • Verify ADR-005 title: WASM Runtime Integration
  • Confirm no other ADRs reference the old incorrect cross-links

🤖 Generated with claude-flow

The Related field incorrectly referenced ADR-003 as KV Cache and
ADR-005 as LoRA Adapter Loading. In the actual repo:
- ADR-003 is SIMD Optimization Strategy
- ADR-004 is KV Cache Management (correct target)
- ADR-005 is WASM Runtime Integration (correct name)

No LoRA Adapter Loading ADR exists; ADR-005 (WASM) is the genuine
related decision for memory management concerns.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@sebastianricaldoni
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

I wasn't sure if there was a specific format used for the ADRs. I did look at a few and it did seem that they all had different structure. Perhaps it is better to keep a single section where to reference other ADRs? I saw that being the case in others.
Thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant