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.
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