On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 09:22:13AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 02:49:39PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > diff --git a/Documentation/BreakingChanges.txt b/Documentation/BreakingChanges.txt > > index 2b64665694..eeb26c9155 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/BreakingChanges.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/BreakingChanges.txt > > @@ -59,10 +59,29 @@ over time. If circumstances change, an earlier decision to deprecate or change > > something may need to be revisited from time to time. So do not take items on > > this list to mean "it is settled, do not waste our time bringing it up again". > > > > +== Procedure > > + > > +Discussing the desire to make breaking changes, declaring that breaking > > +changes are made at a certain version boundary, and recording these > > +decisions in this document, are necessary but not sufficient. > > +Because such changes are expected to be numerous, and the design and > > +implementation of them are expected to span over time, they have to > > +be deployable trivially at such a version boundary. > > + > > +The breaking changes MUST be guarded with the a compile-time switch, > > +WITH_BREAKING_CHANGES, to help this process. When built with it, > > +the resulting Git binary together with its documentation would > > +behave as if these breaking changes slated for the next big version > > +boundary are already in effect. We may also want to have a CI job > > +or two to exercise the work-in-progress version of Git with these > > +breaking changes. > > + > > Agreed. In fact, I'd even tighten the last part a bit: once we have any > breaking changes queued in the tree, we MUST have a CI job that > exercises things regularly. > > Other than that this looks good to me, thanks! Thanks, both. Let's start merging this one down. Thanks, Taylor
