1. 20 Sep, 2019 2 commits
  2. 19 Sep, 2019 1 commit
  3. 16 Sep, 2019 1 commit
  4. 11 Sep, 2019 2 commits
  5. 10 Sep, 2019 1 commit
  6. 09 Sep, 2019 1 commit
  7. 05 Sep, 2019 2 commits
  8. 03 Sep, 2019 1 commit
  9. 02 Sep, 2019 1 commit
  10. 30 Aug, 2019 3 commits
  11. 26 Aug, 2019 2 commits
  12. 23 Aug, 2019 3 commits
  13. 20 Aug, 2019 1 commit
  14. 19 Aug, 2019 1 commit
  15. 14 Aug, 2019 1 commit
  16. 13 Aug, 2019 2 commits
  17. 10 Aug, 2019 2 commits
  18. 09 Aug, 2019 2 commits
  19. 07 Aug, 2019 3 commits
  20. 06 Aug, 2019 3 commits
  21. 05 Aug, 2019 1 commit
  22. 03 Aug, 2019 1 commit
  23. 02 Aug, 2019 3 commits
    • Matt Farina's avatar
      Merge pull request #6152 from AllenZMC/patch-1 · fbcc5dd8
      Matt Farina authored
      fix word 'efault' to 'default'
      fbcc5dd8
    • Kevin Lau's avatar
      Clarify operator docs wording · bb69a1ed
      Kevin Lau authored
      The original is explaining the negation, when the body would not be
      included. Which would happen in the complement of the if expression,
      ie. flipped by De Morgan's law's:
      
      ```
      not (or .Values.anUnsetVariable (not .Values.aSetVariable))
      ==
      and (not .Values.anUnsetVariable) .Values.aSetVariable
      ```
      
      > unset variables evaluate to false
      
      is equivalent to `not .Values.anUnsetVariable`.
      
      > and
      
      is equivalent to `and`.
      
      > .Values.setVariable was negated with the not function
      
      doesn't seem to match `.Values.aSetVariable`.
      To me, that would be `not .Values.aSetVariable` instead.
      
      Anyway, explaining the `if` expression as-is and not the negation is
      clearer and parallels the first `if` operator.
      Signed-off-by: 's avatarKevin Lau <kelau1993@gmail.com>
      bb69a1ed
    • AllenZMC's avatar
      fix word 'efault' to 'default' · 6b5ab08a
      AllenZMC authored
      Signed-off-by: 's avatarczm <zhongming.chang@daocloud.io>
      6b5ab08a