From a17ece1428e1e94b8d34297558d36dba91f33b89 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joey Hess Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2023 14:03:18 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] foo --- .../comment_3_8f205160e62aa1312b8e2ef4cafe8c50._comment | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/doc/todo/onlyingroup_preferred_content_expression/comment_3_8f205160e62aa1312b8e2ef4cafe8c50._comment b/doc/todo/onlyingroup_preferred_content_expression/comment_3_8f205160e62aa1312b8e2ef4cafe8c50._comment index ba44f2af00..e59f4a66ff 100644 --- a/doc/todo/onlyingroup_preferred_content_expression/comment_3_8f205160e62aa1312b8e2ef4cafe8c50._comment +++ b/doc/todo/onlyingroup_preferred_content_expression/comment_3_8f205160e62aa1312b8e2ef4cafe8c50._comment @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ number of copies that are in repositories that are not in the offline group. That might be expressed as say, `copies=!offline:1` -Then `not copies=!offline:1` would be useful to only want files that are +Then `not copies=!offline:0` would be useful to only want files that are available in some repository that is not offline. This would avoid the question of what to do with onlyingroup when a @@ -17,4 +17,6 @@ repository is in the specified group but also another one. I really don't like the `copies=!offline:1` syntax though. (I already disliked copies=group:n` and this takes it in an even worse direction.) + +So while this is more generic, I kind of prefer the onlyingroup name.. """]] -- 2.30.2