From: Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> > > Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes: > > 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").
Ok, will re-roll soon. Thanks, Christian. -- 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
