Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes: > Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes: > > What is the right mental model the end-user needs to form when > understanding these? Conditions on keys go on the left, and any > other random conditions can come as a modifier after action > e.g. add_if_same_value_is_not_at_the_end?
Having said all that, it appears that nobody seems to be able to come up with a saner arrangement that would not paint us into a tough corner that we would not be able to later escape from without being backward incompatible---I certainly didn't. So... let's take this from your earlier message: >> If we limit it to "if_exists" and "if_missing", the user can remember >> that without things becoming too complex. and go with the semantics the posted patches (I believe I have the latest from you on 'pu') attempt to implement, at least for now. IOW, when re-rolling, let's not try changing the arrangement to use if-exists/if-missing (configuration variable names) for keys' existence and include chosen set of conditions on values as modifiers to the action (i.e. X in "do_Y_in_X"). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
