Hi,
On Mon, 2020-10-05 at 18:55 +0200, Jürg Billeter wrote:
> Hi all,
[...]
> I'm proposing to completely drop support for `--use-buildtree=ask`,
> defaulting to `--use-buildtree=never` (the current default for non-
> interactive usage). Requiring the user to explicitly specify `--use-
> buildtree` if they want to stage a cached buildtree seems reasonable to
> me.
>
> Any thoughts on this? Does anyone think it's worthwhile to keep support
> for `bst shell --use-buildtree=ask`?
I definitely agree we should drop silly command line semantics which
only end up adding another prompt.
I also think that when launching a shell, we should:
* Be clear about whether a build tree was requested.
* If a build tree is requested, the shell should simply fail if a
build tree is not available.
I.e. there should be no room for ambiguity, no "Well, if you happen to
have a build tree around, yeah give me one" kind of thing.
I think this also informs my next answer...
> It may make sense to make the CLI a bit more convenient while we're at
> it. E.g., have `--use-buildtree` imply `--build` as buildtree only
> makes sense with build shells. Maybe even rename it to just `
> --buildtree` such that the user can type `bst shell --build` to get a
> clean build shell and `bst shell --buildtree` to get a shell with a
> cached buildtree.
>
> This would require making the click option a boolean flag instead of a
> choice, which means that we would also lose `--use-buildtree=try`.
> However, I don't see an issue adding a separate `--try-buildtree` flag
> for this, assuming we want to keep that functionality.
I don't know what is the justification for launching a shell where you
do not know if you need a build tree or not, ergo, I would favor
dropping this "try" semantic entirely.
Another question is implied pulling of the build tree, this I question
I would rather leave to a dedicated person who is keeping track of
reviewing the CLI and providing some consistent behavior (Chandan ?).
Personally, I think I would favor never incurring implied side effects,
I would be surprised if launching a shell starts inadvertently
downloading a build tree, and I would prefer an experience where:
* I type `bst shell --use-buildtree`
* bst says: "Get outta here, I dont have any build tree for you.
If you think there is one lying around on some remote,
then maybe you aught to go and pull it yourself".
* I type: `bst artifact pull --buildtree`
(and it downloads something)
* I type `bst shell --use-buildtree`
(now it works)
But on this point I digress, if we're going to have implicit side
effects being triggered, it should be consistent, all or nothing (save
for `bst build` which is very "special" in it's nature, and stands
clearly apart from all other commands).
Cheers,
-Tristan
