On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 5:29 PM Bryce Harrington <bryce.harring...@canonical.com> wrote: > > git-ubuntu has proof-of-concepted a number of subcommands during its > initial development. As we're nearing the 1.0 release, we'd like to > narrow our supported featureset to the ones in heaviest use by users. > > Ones that are more challenging to support or that are less heavily used, > will be removed from the codebase, allowing us to focus on strengthening > the remaining set. > > The UNIX philosophy is "Do one thing, and do it well", and for > git-ubuntu the principle theme is the management of the repository > itself, as opposed to the wider packaging workflow for which there are > other tools available. > > Here's our first take at what we think might stay vs. go: > > * git ubuntu clone [Keep]
this is the only command I've ever used, actually. I think that's probably largely due to: $ git ubuntu --help No manual entry for git-ubuntu I know there are issues around being able to provide man pages from a snap, but man pages really are helpful... Also, I also know that 'git-ubuntu --help' (or 'git ubuntu -h') does produce some help output, but that output also refers to man pages that don't (seem to) exist, e.g.: "For more information on the commands see: $ git ubuntu <command> --help $ man git-ubuntu-<command> More information about git ubuntu itself is available at: $ man git-ubuntu " In any case, removing any of the subcommands below wouldn't impact me personally. Thanks! > * git ubuntu export-orig [Keep] > * git ubuntu import [Keep] > * git ubuntu merge [Keep] > * git ubuntu queue [Keep] > * git ubuntu remote [Keep] > * git ubuntu submit [Keep] > * git ubuntu tag [Keep] > > * git ubuntu import-local [Remove] > - We suspect this is mostly unused? > > * git ubuntu import-ppa [Remove] > - We suspect this is mostly unused? > > * git ubunt lint [Remove] > - We suspect this is mostly unused? > - Has been useful in the past, might be candidate to return later > > * git ubuntu build [Remove] > - It's a good idea, definitely a candidate to return one day, but > the code for this is cumbersome, has no test cases, and constrains > our internal refactoring. There are numerous bugs reported about > it, and there are numerous alternate build approaches users can > use. > > * git ubuntu review [Remove] > - Another good idea, but was highly experimental and needs more > implementation work to be actually useful. > > > What do you think? If you have strong reasons to keep any of the > above, please explain the justifications for consideration. > > Otherwise, in the next week or two I plan to start proposing MPs to drop > the subcommands, with the goal of finishing their removal by the 1.0 > release. > > Post-1.0, new CLI subcommands will be introduced (and wanted old ones > re-introduced), using some standard engineering processes. E.g. a spec > outlining the feature, a prototype done in a branch, and corresponding > test cases. > > Bryce > > -- > ubuntu-server mailing list > ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server > More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
