flowctl draft author should prune specs that aren't in the local sources

[psFried]

Say you run the following steps:

• flowctl catalog draft --name acmeCo/foo
• flowctl draft develop
• Rename acmeCo/foo => acmeCo/bar in the local spec files
• flowctl draft author
• flowctl draft publish 💥 your draft includes both acmeCo/foo and acmeCo/bar

There's not an obvious (to me) best way to handle this, but any of these options seem significantly better to me:

• draft author clears all specs from the draft before adding new ones. This way your existing acmeCo/foo remains untouched.
• draft author changes all specs in the draft to null (triggering the deletion of the live specs upon publication) before adding new ones. This way your existing acmeCo/foo will be deleted by the publication.
• draft author accepts an argument similar to --existing abort|keep|overwrite|merge-spec from catalog pull-specs, which explicitly says what to do with an existing draft specs.

Given that there's now, with the introduction of catalog pull-specs|test|publish, relatively few reasons to use draft at all, my inclination is to have draft author simply clear all specs from the draft before adding new ones. It's a super easy change to make, and addresses the biggest foot gun. It would also be easy to add a flag to allow opting in to the current behavior.

[jgraettinger]

my inclination is to have draft author simply clear all specs from the draft before adding new ones

I think we can just do this, without flagging for the prior behavior.

[rijnhard]

I think we can just do this, without flagging for the prior behaviour.

I tend to agree, You are working from a code base anyway, if you removed something and need to re-add it for whatever reason then it's up to your VCS to assist there.