From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2025 10:23:25 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: fix repository-layout when building with breaking changes
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:
> 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
>