[feature-request] option to have multiple kubel buffers (instances)

[d1egoaz]

It would be great if I can operate multiple kubel buffers/instances, each one with it's own context/namespace (buffer local variables?)

I usually work with multiple context/namespace combinations at the same time, however, this package only allows me to have only one active kubel context/namespace.

Thanks for this amazing package!

[abrochard]

Hi @d1egoaz ,
Thank you for your interest! This might be a tad complicated, and there's also a risk of sending kubectl commands to the wrong place if a bug happens. I agree it's a really nice feature though, so I will put it on the back burner for now and see if I can make some time for it in the future.
Just wanted to be upfront and let you know.
Best,

[d1egoaz]

Hi @d1egoaz ,
Thank you for your interest! This might be a tad complicated, and there's also a risk of sending kubectl commands to the wrong place if a bug happens. I agree it's a really nice feature though, so I will put it on the back burner for now and see if I can make some time for it in the future.
Just wanted to be upfront and let you know.
Best,

Thank you! I might look to see if I can do it over the summer, while I learn more about Emacs-lisp

[d1egoaz]

Hey @abrochard

I've finally got time to implement this, I started my own fork and added this and other stuff.

https://github.com/d1egoaz/kubel

Please let me know if this workflow is the interest of this community and I'd happily start sending the upstream PRs.

Feel free to test the fork first, and cherry pick the features that you think make sense to have here. No hard feelings if you think my workflow doesn't apply here 😆

[abrochard]

Hi @d1egoaz ,
This looks amazing. I'm very interested and I would love to see that merged. I saw you have quite a few interesting commits. The next steps are based on two questions:

1. how can we safely bring these changes? I know I need to extend unit test coverage, but is there also a way to bring code change incrementally in small PRs?
2. if this new workflow diverges a lot from the current user experience, how can we teach users about it or minimize discomfort?

[d1egoaz]

how can we safely bring these changes? I know I need to extend unit test coverage, but is there also a way to bring code change incrementally in small PRs?

Sure, small PRs might be the best idea.

if this new workflow diverges a lot from the current user experience, how can we teach users about it or minimize discomfort?

Let's see if I can make things opt-in without making too many changes to current workflow.

[d1egoaz]

@abrochard I added a PR for this, please let me know if you have more questions/comments/changes. etc. Thanks!

[abrochard]

@d1egoaz thank you! I just got back from PTO, gonna take a look asap and will probably have lots of comments.

[d1egoaz]

@d1egoaz thank you! I just got back from PTO, gonna take a look asap and will probably have lots of comments.

Thanks. Take your time. I'm actually going to be on 🌴 until the end of next week.

[Kyrremann]

how's it going with these changes?

[abrochard]

Hi @Kyrremann,
You can follow the progress at #57