Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
You can use the yes program. `yes | google xxx` will answer all y/N prompts
with yes.
See http://linuxmanpages.com/man1/yes.1.php for more information.
Original comment by m.fellin...@gmail.com
on 19 Jun 2010 at 11:02
Agreed. (But of course it can't distinguish between "are you sure?" messages
and other prompts for input, so --yes is still preferable)
Original comment by jh...@google.com
on 19 Jun 2010 at 11:14
Currently (as a workaround) there is a 'delete_prompt' property on
'.googlecl/config' file.
Original comment by ferranb@gmail.com
on 21 Jun 2010 at 12:34
Attached a patch proposal to this issue.
Currently if you run "google docs delete" ***ALL** documents are prompted to be
deleted. With --yes all the documents would be moved to trash without ask... =:O
Original comment by ferranb@gmail.com
on 21 Jun 2010 at 1:04
Attachments:
Yeah, see issue 4 for a proposal to add a --everything flag to make such things
explicit
Original comment by jh...@google.com
on 21 Jun 2010 at 3:10
It seems easy to add the --everything flag. I'll try.
Original comment by ferranb@gmail.com
on 21 Jun 2010 at 6:07
I'm implementing "--everything" flag only for "delete" tasks. Anyone thinks
that have sense for any other task on any service?
Original comment by ferranb@gmail.com
on 22 Jun 2010 at 11:07
I think it's useful for more than just delete. People with lots of
files in docs or picasa probably want to explicitly say --everything
when doing a get rather than having everything come down when they
just say "google picasa get".
Original comment by jh...@google.com
on 23 Jun 2010 at 12:17
Currently, if you don't specify a title all the documents or items are
considered (listed, getted, deleted and so on). I think that --everything is
interesting for security reasons to avoid deleting all the items by mistake.
Another point of view can be that the default behavior of considering all the
items is not ok.
Original comment by ferranb@gmail.com
on 23 Jun 2010 at 12:35
Issue 270 has been merged into this issue.
Original comment by tom.h.mi...@gmail.com
on 30 Aug 2010 at 5:03
This issue was closed by revision r495.
Original comment by tom.h.mi...@gmail.com
on 2 Nov 2010 at 9:16
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
jh...@google.com
on 19 Jun 2010 at 10:13