Re: [Fab-user] dryrun?

[Jorge Vargas]

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Jeff Forcier<address@hidden> 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<address@hidden> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Jeff Forcier<address@hidden> 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
>>>
>>
>