From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, johan@herland.net, josh@joshtriplett.org,
tr@thomasrast.ch, mhagger@alum.mit.edu, sunshine@sunshineco.com,
dan.carpenter@oracle.com, greg@kroah.com, peff@peff.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/14] trailer: process trailers from file and arguments
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 12:51:41 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqq38jqsnc2.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140210.205936.813126606054805390.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> (Christian Couder's message of "Mon, 10 Feb 2014 20:59:36 +0100 (CET)")
Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org> writes:
> Many entries with the same key but distinct values can be configured
> using:
>
> if_exists = add_if_different
> if_missing = add
>
> Many entries with the same key but values that can be the same can be
> configured using:
>
> if_exists = add
> if_missing = add
While the above certainly can express the combinations, I am still
puzzled about the value of having "under this condition" (i.e.
if-exists/if-missing) and "do this" (i.e. add/add-if-different) as
two separate concepts.
If you do not have an existing entry with the same key, no new entry
can be the same as an existing one---therefore, the former "allow
only distinct values for the same key" can just say
trailer."Fixes".action = add_if_different
or something, without any if_exists/if_missing. In a similar way,
the latter "duplicated values allowed for the same key" can say
trailer."Sob".action = add
You can throw into the mix other actions like "add_if_missing", you
can also express "only one value allowed for the same key---the
first one wins", "replace" to mean "replace if there is one with the
same key", and "replace_or_add" to mean "same as 'replace', but add
if there is no existing entries with the same key". Will we lose
expressiveness by simplifying the semantics, getting rid of this
"under this condition" part and instead making "do this" part more
intelligent?
Even if we assume, for the sake of discussion, that it *is* a good
idea to separate "under this condition" part and "do this" part, I
do not think the above is the only or the best way to express
"distinct values allowed for the same key". How do we argue that
this from your example
if_exists = add_if_different
if_missing = add
is a better design than this, for example?
if_key_value_exists = ignore ; exact matching <key,val> exists
if_key_exists = add ; otherwise
if_missing = add
The latter splits remaining conditional logic from "do this" part
(no more "add_if_different" that causes "add" action to see if there
is the same key and act differently) and moves it to "under this
condition" part.
I am trying to illustrate that the line to split the "under this
condition" and "do this" looks arbitrary and fuzzy here, and because
of this arbitrary-ness and fuzziness, it is not very obvious to me
why it is a good idea to have "under this condition" as a separate
concept from "do this" settings.
What is the advantage of having such an extra axis? Does it make it
easier to manage? Does it allow us to express more?
I can see that the location where a new entry (or a duplicated one)
is added (i.e. do we prepend? do we append?) can be orthogonal to
any of the above; no need to bring up 'where' in the discussion.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-10 20:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-06 20:19 [PATCH v5 00/14] Add interpret-trailers builtin Christian Couder
2014-02-06 20:19 ` [PATCH v5 01/14] Add data structures and basic functions for commit trailers Christian Couder
2014-02-06 23:44 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-02-09 13:48 ` Christian Couder
2014-02-10 7:27 ` Eric Sunshine
2014-02-06 23:46 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-02-09 13:51 ` Christian Couder
2014-02-06 20:19 ` [PATCH v5 02/14] trailer: process trailers from file and arguments Christian Couder
2014-02-07 0:03 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-02-09 13:52 ` Christian Couder
2014-02-10 18:14 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-02-10 19:59 ` Christian Couder
2014-02-10 20:51 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2014-02-11 15:02 ` Christian Couder
2014-02-11 18:07 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-02-14 21:41 ` Christian Couder
2014-02-14 21:46 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-02-14 23:29 ` Christian Couder
2014-02-14 23:39 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-02-14 23:57 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-02-15 0:16 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-02-21 0:22 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-02-23 10:44 ` Christian Couder
2014-02-06 20:19 ` [PATCH v5 03/14] trailer: read and process config information Christian Couder
2014-02-06 20:19 ` [PATCH v5 04/14] trailer: process command line trailer arguments Christian Couder
2014-02-07 0:08 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-02-09 14:06 ` Christian Couder
2014-02-06 20:19 ` [PATCH v5 05/14] trailer: parse trailers from input file Christian Couder
2014-02-06 20:19 ` [PATCH v5 06/14] trailer: put all the processing together and print Christian Couder
2014-02-06 20:19 ` [PATCH v5 07/14] trailer: add interpret-trailers command Christian Couder
2014-02-07 0:10 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-02-07 8:34 ` Christian Couder
2014-02-07 18:09 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-02-07 20:35 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-02-06 20:19 ` [PATCH v5 08/14] trailer: add tests for "git interpret-trailers" Christian Couder
2014-02-07 0:11 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-02-06 20:19 ` [PATCH v5 09/14] trailer: if no input file is passed, read from stdin Christian Couder
2014-02-07 0:12 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-02-06 20:19 ` [PATCH v5 10/14] trailer: execute command from 'trailer.<name>.command' Christian Couder
2014-02-07 0:18 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-02-07 18:17 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-02-06 20:20 ` [PATCH v5 11/14] trailer: add tests for trailer command Christian Couder
2014-02-06 20:20 ` [PATCH v5 12/14] trailer: set author and committer env variables Christian Couder
2014-02-07 0:20 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-02-07 0:26 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-02-06 20:20 ` [PATCH v5 13/14] trailer: add tests for commands using " Christian Couder
2014-02-06 20:20 ` [PATCH v5 14/14] Documentation: add documentation for 'git interpret-trailers' Christian Couder
2014-02-10 7:17 ` Eric Sunshine
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqq38jqsnc2.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=chriscool@tuxfamily.org \
--cc=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=johan@herland.net \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=mhagger@alum.mit.edu \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
--cc=sunshine@sunshineco.com \
--cc=tr@thomasrast.ch \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.