New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Allow again brew cask search? #53045

Closed
kud opened this Issue Oct 7, 2018 · 10 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@kud
Contributor

kud commented Oct 7, 2018

Description of feature/enhancement

Allow again brew cask search

Justification

I was glad to see cask merged in the global brew command in order not to think so much if it's on the global repo or the cask repo when you search a package but I feel it's done in a half way.

Indeed, you now have to use brew search to find a package also on cask. But you can't use brew (un)install xxx for a cask package.

It seems not to be consistent. Which makes me think brew cask seach still should/could exist.

@reitermarkus

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@reitermarkus

reitermarkus Oct 7, 2018

Member

If you don't know whether something is a cask, you would have to search first with brew search, not find it, and then use brew cask search to find it.

Allowing brew cask search again doesn't gain us anything.

Member

reitermarkus commented Oct 7, 2018

If you don't know whether something is a cask, you would have to search first with brew search, not find it, and then use brew cask search to find it.

Allowing brew cask search again doesn't gain us anything.

@j0hnm4r5

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@j0hnm4r5

j0hnm4r5 Oct 8, 2018

Contributor

@reitermarkus What is the rationale for this change?

I've searched a bit, and I see issues surrounding the effect of the removal of search, but I don't see the issue where it must have been first discussed; could you point me in that direction? I'd love to fully understand why you guys removed the search command, because as an outsider it doesn't make any sense.

I'm 100% with the OP in that this feels like bad UX; I have to search with brew search, but then to install what I found, I need to do it with brew cask install, because brew install won't work on casks. And I can only get info with brew cask info, because brew info doesn't work on casks. And installed casks are only listed in brew cask list, but not brew list. It really does feel inconsistent; brew cask search should at least be an alias to brew search (I know I can do that on my own, but still).

Contributor

j0hnm4r5 commented Oct 8, 2018

@reitermarkus What is the rationale for this change?

I've searched a bit, and I see issues surrounding the effect of the removal of search, but I don't see the issue where it must have been first discussed; could you point me in that direction? I'd love to fully understand why you guys removed the search command, because as an outsider it doesn't make any sense.

I'm 100% with the OP in that this feels like bad UX; I have to search with brew search, but then to install what I found, I need to do it with brew cask install, because brew install won't work on casks. And I can only get info with brew cask info, because brew info doesn't work on casks. And installed casks are only listed in brew cask list, but not brew list. It really does feel inconsistent; brew cask search should at least be an alias to brew search (I know I can do that on my own, but still).

@kud

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kud

kud Oct 8, 2018

Contributor

Glad I'm not the only brain to think like that @j0hnm4r5 .

Mostly that I know most of time what I'll find in brew and brew cask as the first is for cli and the second for apps.

I liked the idea to be integrated in brew but scoped in a different way.

The only thing I see brew cask search is not useful is now brew cask displays two sections: formula and casks.

But to be fair, either you have a different scope for any formula/casks, either both work with the same commands. But for the moment, it's not consistent.

Contributor

kud commented Oct 8, 2018

Glad I'm not the only brain to think like that @j0hnm4r5 .

Mostly that I know most of time what I'll find in brew and brew cask as the first is for cli and the second for apps.

I liked the idea to be integrated in brew but scoped in a different way.

The only thing I see brew cask search is not useful is now brew cask displays two sections: formula and casks.

But to be fair, either you have a different scope for any formula/casks, either both work with the same commands. But for the moment, it's not consistent.

@j0hnm4r5

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@j0hnm4r5

j0hnm4r5 Oct 8, 2018

Contributor

I feel like what they're going for is to fully integrate brew cask into brew; deprecating brew cask search is a step toward that. The problem is that that integration isn't complete yet, so all of the commands haven't been migrated to the new format. Until that happens, users are left with an inconsistent and fragmented experience.

Contributor

j0hnm4r5 commented Oct 8, 2018

I feel like what they're going for is to fully integrate brew cask into brew; deprecating brew cask search is a step toward that. The problem is that that integration isn't complete yet, so all of the commands haven't been migrated to the new format. Until that happens, users are left with an inconsistent and fragmented experience.

@reitermarkus

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@reitermarkus

reitermarkus Oct 8, 2018

Member

What is the rationale for this change?

The rationale is to remove duplicate code shared between Homebrew and Homebrew Cask, which in turn makes the project as a whole more maintainable.

Member

reitermarkus commented Oct 8, 2018

What is the rationale for this change?

The rationale is to remove duplicate code shared between Homebrew and Homebrew Cask, which in turn makes the project as a whole more maintainable.

@j0hnm4r5

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@j0hnm4r5

j0hnm4r5 Oct 9, 2018

Contributor

I totally get that, really, I do. But you can't disregard user experience to make that happen. Is there some way I can get involved with this sort of thing? I love Homebrew Cask, and I want to help.

Contributor

j0hnm4r5 commented Oct 9, 2018

I totally get that, really, I do. But you can't disregard user experience to make that happen. Is there some way I can get involved with this sort of thing? I love Homebrew Cask, and I want to help.

@reitermarkus

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@reitermarkus

reitermarkus Oct 9, 2018

Member

But you can't disregard user experience to make that happen.

From my point of view this improves the experience by not needing two commands for the same thing.

Is there some way I can get involved with this sort of thing?

You can look through the open issues and send PRs to improve or fix them.

Member

reitermarkus commented Oct 9, 2018

But you can't disregard user experience to make that happen.

From my point of view this improves the experience by not needing two commands for the same thing.

Is there some way I can get involved with this sort of thing?

You can look through the open issues and send PRs to improve or fix them.

@j0hnm4r5

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@j0hnm4r5

j0hnm4r5 Oct 9, 2018

Contributor

Speak to my previous comment then, about the inconsistencies in command usage:

SEARCHING: brew search

INSTALLATION: brew cask install

INFO: brew cask info

...

I agree that reducing the number of commands is a good thing, but you've only done it in one place (with search). Now users like myself and the OP have to remember that search doesn't use cask, but everything else does. And presumably, as more of these commands are merged into standalone brew, we'll have to remember which are just brew and which are cask. And that burden shouldn't be on the consumer.

TLDR: I'm all for reducing the number of commands (both for maintainability and usability), but it's an all-or-nothing kind of thing. Inconsistency in which commands are brew and which are brew cask does more harm to the user than leaving them all alone.

Contributor

j0hnm4r5 commented Oct 9, 2018

Speak to my previous comment then, about the inconsistencies in command usage:

SEARCHING: brew search

INSTALLATION: brew cask install

INFO: brew cask info

...

I agree that reducing the number of commands is a good thing, but you've only done it in one place (with search). Now users like myself and the OP have to remember that search doesn't use cask, but everything else does. And presumably, as more of these commands are merged into standalone brew, we'll have to remember which are just brew and which are cask. And that burden shouldn't be on the consumer.

TLDR: I'm all for reducing the number of commands (both for maintainability and usability), but it's an all-or-nothing kind of thing. Inconsistency in which commands are brew and which are brew cask does more harm to the user than leaving them all alone.

@vitorgalvao

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@vitorgalvao

vitorgalvao Oct 9, 2018

Member

From my comment on the other issue:

If we make brew cask search work again, we’ll need to add more code to separate brew search and brew cask search. We can’t simply alias the commands because it makes no sense that brew cask search would also search formulae but it’d also make no sense to remove casks from brew search at this point.

Member

vitorgalvao commented Oct 9, 2018

From my comment on the other issue:

If we make brew cask search work again, we’ll need to add more code to separate brew search and brew cask search. We can’t simply alias the commands because it makes no sense that brew cask search would also search formulae but it’d also make no sense to remove casks from brew search at this point.

@reitermarkus

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@reitermarkus

reitermarkus Oct 9, 2018

Member

but you've only done it in one place

brew cask cleanup is gone too.

And that burden shouldn't be on the consumer.

I think “burden” is a bit of a stretch when talking about remembering which command to use. We give users plenty of time to adapt by warning them that the command is deprecated.

Member

reitermarkus commented Oct 9, 2018

but you've only done it in one place

brew cask cleanup is gone too.

And that burden shouldn't be on the consumer.

I think “burden” is a bit of a stretch when talking about remembering which command to use. We give users plenty of time to adapt by warning them that the command is deprecated.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment