Hi Patrick
On 04/03/2025 06:35, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
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.
Yes, I can do that when I re-roll the patches at
https://lore.kernel.org/git/pull.1863.git.1740149837.gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx/
to use WITH_BREAKING_CHANGES
Best Wishes
Phillip
Patrick
