On Wed, Nov 8, 2023, at 08:53, Øystein Walle wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 at 20:30, Victoria Dye <vdye@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Since the interaction isn't clearly defined at the moment, we could probably
>> still update it to work like you're describing here. I'm happy to drop this
>> patch and implement your recommendation in a follow-up series. Let me know
>> what you think!
>
> Regardless of whether the logic is changed in a follow-up series or not
> I think the current behavior is worth documenting even if it doesn't
> exist for much longer in the tree. So I am favor of having this patch as
> part of this series.
The funny thing though is that once it’s documented then you also kind of
commit yourself to it, right? That it’s how it’s supposed to behave.[1] If
you instead change the behavior (to the correct one) and document it in
the same series then there is no in-between time when people can claim to
rely on it via the documentation.
[1] Modulo “subject to change” hedging, but it seems that even
experimental commands who are documented as that are now resistant to
change in practice.
