On Wed, Nov 8, 2023, at 08:53, Øystein Walle wrote:

On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 at 20:30, Victoria Dye [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Since the interaction isn't clearly defined at the moment, we could probably
still update it to work like you're describing here. I'm happy to drop this
patch and implement your recommendation in a follow-up series. Let me know
what you think!

Regardless of whether the logic is changed in a follow-up series or not
I think the current behavior is worth documenting even if it doesn't
exist for much longer in the tree. So I am favor of having this patch as
part of this series.

The funny thing though is that once it’s documented then you also kind of
commit yourself to it, right? That it’s how it’s supposed to behave.[1] If
you instead change the behavior (to the correct one) and document it in
the same series then there is no in-between time when people can claim to
rely on it via the documentation.

[1] Modulo “subject to change” hedging, but it seems that even
    experimental commands who are documented as that are now resistant to
    change in practice.