Re: [RFC] doc: check-docs and WITH_BREAKING_CHANGES

From: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Date: Sep 23, 2025, 13:58 UTC
Message-ID: <aNKnmxtcrWH_GlAV@pks.im>
In-Reply-To: <DD6B592F-005D-4F36-9585-003C1C4ADAE5@gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 09:30:28AM -0400, Ben Knoble wrote:

Show 32 quoted lines

> 
> > Le 23 sept. 2025 à 04:03, Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> a écrit :
> > 
> > On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 02:33:33PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> Shouldn't we do something like this for breaking builds?
> >> 
> >> Documentation/Makefile pays attention to EXCLUDED_PROGRAMS to
> >> pretend that the git-$deprecated.adoc files do not exist
> >> 
> >>    -include GIT-EXCLUDED-PROGRAMS
> >> 
> >>    MAN1_TXT += $(filter-out \
> >>                    $(patsubst %,%.adoc,$(EXCLUDED_PROGRAMS)) \
> >>                    $(addsuffix .adoc, $(ARTICLES) $(SP_ARTICLES)), \
> >>                    $(wildcard git-*.adoc))
> >> 
> >> but nobody seems to put the removed programs on the list.  
> >> 
> >> The dependencies around Documentation/GIT-EXCLUDED-PROGRAMS is still
> >> screwed up, I think, but this may be a good first step to straighten
> >> it out.  If "make -C Documentation" runs lint-docs by default, for
> >> example, we may want to tweak the Makefile down there to make
> >> link-docs target depend on the GIT-EXCLUDED-PROGRAMS perhaps.
> >> 
> >> diff --git i/Makefile w/Makefile
> >> index 893070be76..711cade8fd 100644
> >> --- i/Makefile
> >> +++ w/Makefile
> > 
> > Curious, but what's up with the "i" and "w" prefixes here? :)
> 
> That’s « index » and « working tree » from diff.mnemonicPrefix

Interesting. It's amazing how there's always something new to learn about Git :) Thanks!

Patrick