Add extra clarity to the binary logic of the rules definitions

[rogerluan]

Resolves #815

[bobvanderlinden]

I personally think mentioning and and or in the readme might be confusing. It's true that all of the conditions of a rule must be true for the rule to pass and only one of the rules have to pass on order to trigger a auto-merge. I don't think mentioning and+or really helps in this case.

I say this partly because of #764 (comment), where rules also determine the behaviour of the merge and not just true/false.

[rogerluan]

I personally think mentioning and and or in the readme might be confusing. It's true that all of the conditions of a rule must be true for the rule to pass and only one of the rules have to pass on order to trigger a auto-merge. I don't think mentioning and+or really helps in this case.

I say this partly because of #764 (comment), where rules also determine the behaviour of the merge and not just true/false.

Oh I didn't know that things other than Conditions could be used within the rules. Your point makes sense then.

I don't know how the documentation could be improved here then. I resolved my issue once you explained its behavior a little better, but maybe there're no changes to be made to the documentation then. If someone has issues understanding they'll probably find #815 and this PR itself :)

I'm gonna close this PR and #815 , at least for now 👍 thanks @bobvanderlinden !