Re: [PATCH v5 02/14] trailer: process trailers from file and arguments

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> 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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]