search

xorpaul / g10k

my r10k fork in Go
Apache License 2.0
126 stars 50 forks source link

subcommands missing #5

Open TheMeier opened 8 years ago

TheMeier commented 8 years ago

in order to be a r10k replacement all subcommands should be implemented.

COMMANDS deploy Puppet dynamic environment deployment help show help puppetfile Perform operations on a Puppetfile version Print the version of r10k

alex-harvey-z3q commented 7 years ago

At the very least, there should be syntactic equivalence.

Most basic usage:

r10k puppetfile install

becomes

g10k -puppetfile
maxadamo commented 6 years ago

Dear Andreas, I want to connect a question to this ticket (to avoid polluting your repo with too many issues). Do you think it is beyond the scope of the tool to create switch names, which are compatible with r10k? Why am I asking this? It's not a functionality that I personally need, but following up a question that I have read in the puppetcommunity slack channel, some people is wondering if g10k can be used by Code Manager (from puppet Enterprise). I don't even know if that would be the only problem. I also don't know if it's more convenient to create a wrapper rather than adding unnecessary complexity to the code.

alex-harvey-z3q commented 6 years ago

Yeah lack of syntactic equivalence is a shame because if we had it then anyone could just insert a line in their code somewhere:

alias r10k=/usr/local/bin/g10k

Then this would truly become a drop-in replacement.

I am sure the small user base of g10k would understand if a breaking change was made to migrate to use r10k's switch names.

xorpaul commented 6 years ago

I'll have to think about it.

To be honest the only reason the g10k parameters look the way they do is because of the flag go library.