)]}'
{
  "commit": "0343f018f980d35a3fe856a08646e1c2704ed6a2",
  "tree": "920fd5783f6c2e3b875d73fd098c3267fd81d1ee",
  "parents": [
    "3504fe0689b95a73fec427beeaac84d6be4b9c8c",
    "c16df15ae877101fca35bea47de5167046e2ce9c"
  ],
  "author": {
    "name": "tonyaiuto",
    "email": "tony.aiuto@gmail.com",
    "time": "Sun Feb 22 14:35:09 2026 -0400"
  },
  "committer": {
    "name": "GitHub",
    "email": "noreply@github.com",
    "time": "Sun Feb 22 14:35:09 2026 -0400"
  },
  "message": "Bring testing for bzlmod vs. non-bzlmod up to date with bazel features (#1029)\n\nBring testing for bzlmod vs. non-bzlmod up to date with bazel features.\n\nHead and LTS have bzlmod enabled by default, so:\n- stop enabling the flag explicitly\n- stop calling out \"bzlmod\" in the test name, that is now assumed, only\nnobzlmod needs naming\n\n- Do the packaging test against workspace only for bazel 7 and earlier.\n- we probably could drop the workspace test entirely. It is essentially\nmeaningless now\n\nThis is a spin out from a followup PR to #1027. //distro:packaging_test\nwas failing on workspace tests while using bazel 8.x. Since that seemed\nstrange, I decided to clean this up now, to get a little better prepared\nfor the day that `--enable_bzlmod` is no longer a valid flag.",
  "tree_diff": []
}