On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Jeff Forcier<j...@bitprophet.org> wrote: > Hi Jorge, > > Apologies for the wait, and the semi bad news -- I think I will hold > off on putting this in, for now. >
ahh :( > I very much like the idea, but prefer that such a feature fulfill two > requirements: > > 1. Don't actually connect, at all, for any reason (arguments can > probably be made against this, however.) rly? I assumed my patch didn't connect. > 2. Apply equally to all operations. > > Your patch is, naturally, nice and simple, but it only applies to > run/sudo, not to put/get/local. And in order to apply the dry-run idea > to some of those later 3, such as put(), some nontrivial > refactoring/rewriting would need to be done in order to meet #1 above. > I agree. I only applied to run/sudo becuase those are the ones I'm using. > So I'd rather do this right or not at all, and so I'm pushing it off > to be done after 0.9 final goes out the door. Sorry! :) It will > definitely be in for 1.0. > ok I guess I can keep my local patch for now. > Best, > Jeff > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 9:48 PM, Jorge Vargas<jorge.var...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Jeff Forcier<j...@bitprophet.org> wrote: >>>> So do you think dryrun can go in? >>> >>> Chances are good that I will get around to examining outstanding >>> submissions sometime this weekend, and I'll let you know what my >>> decision is :) I expect it will go in in one form or another. >>> >> Great news, that means I don't need to remove all my instances of it :) >> >>> Best, >>> Jeff >>> >> > _______________________________________________ Fab-user mailing list Fab-user@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fab-user
