Chris Lamb wrote:
> Sure thing -- I've forwarded this upstream here:
>
> https://github.com/redis/redis/issues/9273
Okay, so the latest reply there suggests that this is (now) the
expected and behaviour of Redis going forward.
I still don't quite grasp what it is that fakeredis is testing though,
so I can't state with any authority whether it definitely is fakeredis
that needs to be addressed, but reverting this behavioural change in
Redis does not seem the right way to go at all (!).
Regards,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` la...@debian.org 🍥 chris-lamb.co.uk
`-
