mirrors/git-annex
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages 1 Wiki Activity Actions

Added a comment: re: rationale

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
kyle 2020-03-09 22:17:51 +00:00 • committed by admin
parent 451b6b825c
commit 4e9a3c95f2
1 changed files with 30 additions and 0 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

30
doc/forum/Preferred_contents_based_on_presence_in_repo/comment_3_6aaf8226051e9dd104da206b032cfe5a._comment Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
[[!comment format=mdwn
username="kyle"
avatar="http://cdn.libravatar.org/avatar/7d6e85cde1422ad60607c87fa87c63f3"
subject="re: rationale"
date="2020-03-09T22:17:51Z"
content="""
> Is there a rationale for not having the option for preferred contents?
Hmm, I wouldn't be able to answer this myself, but digging around a
bit it looks like there used to be an `in=` option. Here's the
rationale given in that commit:
```
CommitDate: Fri Oct 19 16:09:21 2012 -0400
40aab719dfe9c3bd240656c1ff387cad0ba8d96d
Replace \"in=\" with \"present\" in preferred content expressions
in= was problimatic in two ways. First, it referred to a remote by name,
but preferred content expressions can be evaluated elsewhere, where that
remote doesn't exist, or a different remote has the same name. This name
lookup code could error out at runtime. Secondly, in= seemed pretty useless.
in=here did not cause content to be gotten, but it did let present content
be dropped.
present is more useful, although \"not present\" is unstable and should be
avoided.
```
"""]]