Josh Steadmon <steadmon@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Ah, sorry for misunderstanding. I've restored the test along with a > test_unconfig line for V3; however, doesn't this just turn into a "change > detector" test whose only purpose will be to fail if/when we change the > default value for this config option? Maybe a difference in opinion: "change detection" sounds like non-essential changes to program behavior can cause a test to fail, but default value handling seems quite essential to me. Not to mention that default value handling is easy to break, so IMO guarding against accidental regressions is pretty useful. As for practical churn, I don't expect that we'll intentionally change this default often.
