CLI: 'tahoe $SUBCOMMAND --help' no longer shows "global" options #2233
Labels
No Label
0.2.0
0.3.0
0.4.0
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.7.0
0.8.0
0.9.0
1.0.0
1.1.0
1.10.0
1.10.1
1.10.2
1.10a2
1.11.0
1.12.0
1.12.1
1.13.0
1.14.0
1.15.0
1.15.1
1.2.0
1.3.0
1.4.1
1.5.0
1.6.0
1.6.1
1.7.0
1.7.1
1.7β
1.8.0
1.8.1
1.8.2
1.8.3
1.8β
1.9.0
1.9.0-s3branch
1.9.0a1
1.9.0a2
1.9.0b1
1.9.1
1.9.2
1.9.2a1
LeastAuthority.com automation
blocker
cannot reproduce
cloud-branch
code
code-dirnodes
code-encoding
code-frontend
code-frontend-cli
code-frontend-ftp-sftp
code-frontend-magic-folder
code-frontend-web
code-mutable
code-network
code-nodeadmin
code-peerselection
code-storage
contrib
critical
defect
dev-infrastructure
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
fixed
invalid
major
minor
n/a
normal
operational
packaging
somebody else's problem
supercritical
task
trivial
unknown
was already fixed
website
wontfix
worksforme
No Milestone
No Assignees
2 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Reference: tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25#2233
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
For example, in Tahoe-LAFS v1.9.2:
In Tahoe-LAFS v1.10.0:
This appears to be a regression due to the fix for #166.
The desired output is:
Notice that the desired description of
-d
forcreate-*
subcommands should be different:Also note that this has a default in the case of
tahoe create-node
andtahoe create-client
, but not fortahoe create-key-generator
ortahoe create-stats-gatherer
.This is not a blocker for 1.10.1, just a nice-to-have.
Hm, does it really need to do this? I think that could get a bit noisy, to have those same global opts on every command. Git doesn't do it that way.
How about a single line that points to
tahoe --help
to get the global options, like:but maybe we inline the global-opts on just the
create-*
subcommands, to emphasize how-d
is different there:Hmm. The description "
Same as --node-directory.
" for-C
doesn't make sense unless--node-directory
is described. I think I'd prefer it as it is in comment:94981, TBH.What it we removed that "same as" reference?:
It is not the case that
--basedir=
overrides--node-directory=
; only one may be present.Better would be:
PR ready for review in https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs/pull/168
LGTM.
In /tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/commit/9d6003357da3eab8106269a022f4a615d52b0f8b: