Call
31 July · 13:00
Lee, Robertas, Šaras, Gitanas and Paulius held the scheduled Kairos video call.
01 · The record
What happened
The facts, separated from the technical analysis.
Proposal
Self-host the shared workspace
After the call, Ro proposed using a shared folder on his Synology server instead of GitHub.
Instructions
Synology Drive Client
The message supplied individual accounts and instructed Lee and Šaras to synchronize the Kairos folder through Synology Drive.
Current state
No migration has happened
No connection was attempted. No files were uploaded. The existing private Git remote remains canonical and healthy.
Security boundary: usernames, passwords, the server address and the original screenshot are deliberately excluded from this brief. This note records the architecture, not the secrets.
02 · Different tools
Drive is not Git
Both keep copies of files, but they coordinate changes at different levels.
| Capability | Synology Drive | Git remote |
|---|---|---|
| Unit of change | Individual files and folders. | A named commit: one complete, internally consistent changeset. |
| History | Historical versions of individual files. | A connected history of commits, authors, branches, merges and tags. |
| Conflicts | Keep the latest file, keep the server file, or rename a discarded/conflicted copy. | Fetch both histories, compare their common ancestor, then merge or reject the push. |
| Concurrency | File locking and file-level conflict rules. | Independent local clones; collaboration occurs through Git’s object and reference protocol. |
| Audit | Sync and activity logs. | Authored commits with content hashes and exact parent history. |
| Kairos automation | No native understanding of commits, refs, branches or the privacy-safe publication guard. | Already powers pull, validation, publication, remote verification and agent handoff. |
| Best use here | Ordinary shared files and a backup layer. | The canonical shared operating memory. |
03 · Failure mechanism
Where the risk enters
The problem is not “Synology bad.” It is two synchronization systems writing the same repository state.
Unsafe arrangement
Multi-user file sync around two working repositories
Lee’s working folder
plus local
plus local
.git→
Synology Drive
resolves each changed file
resolves each changed file
←
Šaras’s working folder
plus local
plus local
.gitA repository update can touch objects, references, the index, pack files and lock files. File sync can observe or resolve those pieces independently.
Safe arrangement
Independent clones around one Git remote
Lee’s independent clone
commit and push
commit and push
→
Self-hosted Git remote
on Ro’s server
on Ro’s server
←
Šaras’s independent clone
pull and commit
pull and commit
Git validates repository history as Git. The Git service creates a supported backup or export; Synology Hyper Backup can then protect that backup without becoming the collaboration protocol.
Repository state can split
A file-sync resolver can keep one client’s reference while retaining another client’s object or index state. That combination may never have existed as a valid commit.
Conflict copies are not Git merges
A renamed “conflicted copy” preserves bytes, but Git does not interpret that filename as an alternate branch or a merge candidate.
The second sync engine is invisible
Git may report a clean local operation while Drive is still uploading, downloading or resolving repository metadata behind it.
Current guards lose authority
Kairos presently verifies a specific remote commit before sealing work. A shared folder has no equivalent remote-main contract unless Git is hosted inside it properly.
Explicit inferenceSynology’s documentation describes file-level versioning, locking and conflict resolution. Git’s documentation describes a repository as a coordinated object database, index and set of references. The risk conclusion above follows from combining those two documented data models; Synology does not publish a statement specifically certifying or prohibiting shared synchronization of active
.git directories.04 · The options
Three honest paths
Ro does not have to trust GitHub to keep the benefits of Git.
05 · Migration contract
Move only when these pass
A new server must preserve the operating guarantees listed below.
- Choose a real Git service. Forgejo/Gitea for the browser experience; Synology Git Server for the smallest working system.
- Create individual identities. Separate accounts and SSH keys for Lee and Šaras. No shared passwords.
- Import the existing history. Preserve every commit, branch and tag. No zip upload and no reconstructed “fresh start.”
- Verify the exact remote state. The new remote’s default branch must resolve to the same commit as the current canonical repository before cutover.
- Point independent clones at the new remote. Do not place either working clone inside a multi-user Drive sync task.
- Re-run the Kairos guards. Start pull, shared-state validation, privacy-safe publication, stop enforcement and remote verification must all pass.
- Test a real concurrent edit. Lee and Šaras change different files, pull, merge, push and verify from both machines.
- Back up, then restore. A backup is unproven until a repository can be restored elsewhere and its commit history validates.
- Run both remotes during a short acceptance window. Keep GitHub read-only or mirrored until the self-hosted path survives normal use.
- Cut over deliberately. Only then make Ro’s server canonical and retire the old remote as a recoverable archive.
06 · Security
Replace the exposed credentials
This is credential hygiene, not an accusation that anyone accessed the account.
Credential
Replace the circulated password
The initial password is visible in a chat message and now exists in a screenshot. Treat it as exposed. Rotate it before any sign-in.
Identity
One person, one account
Each person needs a revocable identity. Enforce DSM two-factor authentication where supported; use SSH keys for Git.
Network
Prefer private access
Use Tailscale or another VPN when practical instead of exposing administrative services directly to the public internet.
Recovery
Keep a separate backup
Back up the Git service and its data outside the live volume. Test recovery, including permissions and repository validation.
No login attempted
No credentials copied into Kairos
No files uploaded
Current Git remote verified
07 · Evidence
Primary sources
Product claims come from official documentation, checked on 31 July 2026.
01
Synology Drive technical specifications
File history, sync tasks and conflict-policy behavior.
02
Synology Drive Client knowledge base
File locking, conflict copies and client behavior.
03
Synology Git Server package
Synology’s official Git hosting option and supported models.
04
Official Git documentation
Git’s object database, commits, index, branches and history model.
05
Git repository layout
Objects, packs, references and repository metadata.
06
Forgejo installation guide
Official binary and container installation paths.
07
Gitea Docker installation
Official container deployment and persistent-volume guidance.
08
Synology DSM two-factor authentication
Supported second factors and enforcement guidance.
09
Tailscale on Synology
Private NAS access and DSM-specific setup.
10
Synology Hyper Backup restoration
Restore procedures and permission considerations.
08 · Machine record
A canonical reading layer
The same decision, provenance and limits in a compact structure for Claude or another machine assistant.
- Verdict
- Do not synchronize active Git working repositories through a shared Synology Drive folder.
- Recommended
- Host Forgejo, Gitea or Synology Git Server on Ro’s infrastructure; keep independent local clones.
- Current state
- No Synology authentication, upload or migration was attempted. The existing private Git remote remains canonical.
- Evidence split
- Call details are reported facts. The repository-risk conclusion is an explicit inference from Synology’s file-sync model and Git’s repository model.
- Secrets
- Usernames, passwords, server address and source screenshot are excluded.
- Authorship
- Prepared by Talos (5.6 Sol) on behalf of Lee Matulis, using OpenAI Codex model
gpt-5.6-sol. - Approval
- Lee commissioned the brief but did not approve these exact words as his own before this release.
Canonical structured payload: <script id="kairos-machine-brief" type="application/json">. Interoperable metadata: TechArticle JSON-LD in the document head. Stable section IDs and data-evidence-status attributes distinguish facts, verified state, inference and recommendation.
09 · Direct note
Ro
The short version, without technical theatre.
Your instinct is right: Kairos can own its infrastructure instead of depending on GitHub.
The only issue is that Synology Drive is file synchronization, not a Git repository. It can hold the files, but it does not preserve the collaboration contract we already built around commits, branches, authorship, validation and remote verification. Synchronizing the active .git directory through Drive would add a second sync system around Git and create a real conflict and recovery risk.
The requirement is a real Git remote on infrastructure we control.
Let’s host Forgejo, Gitea or Synology Git Server on your machine. Then the server is ours, the accounts are ours, and the full history and automation survive. Synology Drive can still handle ordinary shared documents. The Git service should produce its own backup/export, which Hyper Backup can then protect.
Before connecting, please rotate the initial passwords that were sent in chat and give each person an individual account or SSH key. Once the self-hosted Git remote passes the migration checks above, we can cut over without asking any human to babysit Git every day.
Talos (5.6 Sol)on behalf of Lee Matulis