Gendarme

But afaik renaming an enum is only a breaking change if people are actually using that enum. This should not ordinarily happen so I'd prefer to use the weaker "can break" instead of will break. This sounds right: I'd expect quite a few people will not know what "breaking" means in this context so we'd probably be better off using

Please commit! Thanks Sebastien

IIRC the MS breaking change definition is about "things that may break compatibility", so renaming any enum member is something that "may break", so a breaking change (for the exact reason you described). So we should replace "can be a breaking change" with "is a breaking change" (MS terminology) or "can break compatibility" (non-MS

This covers AvoidLackOfCohesionOfMethodsRu le, ConsiderUsingStopwatchRule, AvoidDeepInheritanceTreeRule, and AvoidComplexMethodsRule. -- Jesse

This covers DoNotUseReservedInEnumValueNam esRule, AvoidDeepNamespaceHierarchyRul e, and ParameterNamesShouldMatchOverr idenMethodRule. -- Jesse

r139718 -- Jesse

Please commit. Thanks Sebastien

Here's a new version of the Design patch. It uses the new style method of documenting configurable properties and some of the TODOs I added have been moved to <[link] >. -- Jesse

Click on [link] - or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't work.

Click on [link] - or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't work.