Support abbreviated owner/repo Git URL format
#242
Conversation
The GitHub [hub] tool allows using `owner/repo` as an abbreviated form of `https://github.com/owner/repo.git`. This change supports that format with the `--git` command-line argument. It also improves the command-line argument documentation. [hub]: https://github.com/github/hub
Backslashes strike again
| /// [hub]. | ||
| /// | ||
| /// [hub]: https://github.com/github/hub | ||
| pub fn new_abbr(git: &str, branch: String) -> Result<Self, failure::Error> { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm a little embarrassed with this as we definitely become more and more closer to github and not providers like gitlab, atlassian products, etc...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, it's... unfortunate. Both because of GitHub's awful politics (drop ICE, you bastards) and because we've effectively centralized a purposefully distributed VCS. (Not like Atlassian's any good either, though.)
But also... it's a very convenient feature that helps improve usability. It might be nice to have a (hardcoded...?) name-to-URL map as well, for the projects in TEMPLATES.md.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And, just pragmatically, every single template currently listed in TEMPLATES.md is on GitHub anyways.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And, just pragmatically, every single template currently listed in TEMPLATES.md is on GitHub anyways.
Yep but, in my own opinion, this does not have to push us to "close" some doors...
Let's wait if other maintainers have an opinion on that or not (if they come).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just a thought on this, right now the --git cli param defaults to github, which is fine. What about introducing others like --gitlab or --bitbucket that behave as --git just with a different url string that is used here in line 57
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would support that, but remember that the good is the enemy of the perfect and this code is here, working and tested, now. Of course I'll defer to the maintainers but I don't know if this is worth bikeshedding that much over.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IMO it's an improvement anyway, means the old style with a full repo URL is still available.
So I would vote for merge as it is and wait for feedback / wishes from users after releasing it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey there, can we just land this? I don't see any reason to wait any longer.
Also we should plan a new release.. I guess it's time.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As it seems the original maintainers don't care about the project anymore, I think we can bypass their approval indeed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually I would not call it baypassing, if something goes in a direction they don't want, then they surely would jump in and make decissions, not seeing them making any statements for means just they agree with everything. 😁
|
I resolved the current conflicts with master. |
|
Done, thanks again for your work :) |
The GitHub hub tool allows using
owner/repoas an abbreviated form ofhttps://github.com/owner/repo.git. This change supports that format in the--gitcommand-line argument.It also improves the command-line argument documentation.