You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently we use --quiet, --force and --dry-run for all sorts of things and they're most definitely not consistent.
I'm imaging a re-work where we have the following:
-i, --non-interactive - to suppress CommanderJS outputs -q, --quiet - to suppress ALL outputs and communicate solely through exit codes -n, --dry-run - to prevent making changes to the configuration or the filesystem. Would also print out information about what would have happened. -f, --force - do things without asking questions. It would be the equivalent of the --non-interactive mode in most cases. Where it would be different is during destructive operations. Would not ask to remove files for example.
This is still a work in progress theory, please feel free to contribute.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Currently we use
--quiet
,--force
and--dry-run
for all sorts of things and they're most definitely not consistent.I'm imaging a re-work where we have the following:
-i, --non-interactive
- to suppress CommanderJS outputs-q, --quiet
- to suppress ALL outputs and communicate solely through exit codes-n, --dry-run
- to prevent making changes to the configuration or the filesystem. Would also print out information about what would have happened.-f, --force
- do things without asking questions. It would be the equivalent of the--non-interactive
mode in most cases. Where it would be different is during destructive operations. Would not ask to remove files for example.This is still a work in progress theory, please feel free to contribute.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: