Re: [PATCH] docs: fix repository-layout when building with breaking changes
- From
- Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
- Date
- Mar 4, 2025, 10:23 UTC
- Message-ID
- <2583368f-c7ad-4088-b78d-f6d972c4ee47@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <Z8afGexTdlqDnPV8@pks.im>
Hi Patrick
On 04/03/2025 06:35, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
Show 19 quoted lines
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 10:18:05AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> "Phillip Wood via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> 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@gmail.com/ to use WITH_BREAKING_CHANGES
Best Wishes
Phillip
> Patrick >