On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 10:18:05AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Phillip Wood via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > I copied the name from the test prerequisite as I didn't want to have > > different names for condition used in the tests and documentation. I do > > have some reservations about the naming though as it means we end up > > having to use ifdef::!without-breaking-changes[] or test_expect_success > > !WITHOUT_BREAKING_CHANGES to document and test breaking changes which is > > a double negative. > > It was exactly the first thing that came to my mind when I saw the > change to the Makefile in the patch. Unless our breaking changes > are all removals, which is not likely to be the case in the longer > term, "without-breaking-changes" would be an invitation for > confusing double negatives. I remember not quite being happy with the double-negation myself. I don't mind renaming the prerequisite we have in our test suite for consistency, as well, if you want to do that. Patrick
