Skip to content
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

Refactoring of the command syntax #255

Open
45054 opened this issue Mar 12, 2018 · 6 comments
Open

Refactoring of the command syntax #255

45054 opened this issue Mar 12, 2018 · 6 comments
Labels
Accepted Accepted issue on our roadmap Design Design or UX/UI related Needed: discussion More discussion needed before anything can be done (or still no agreement has been reached) Priority: medium Medium priority
Milestone

Comments

@45054
Copy link

45054 commented Mar 12, 2018

As mentioned in #254 and more specifically in #21 (comment) the current command line syntax could be improved.

To take up the suggestions I would like to propose the following changes

Old New
whipper offset find
whipper drive analyze
whipper setup /dev/sdX
whipper cd rip whipper rip /dev/sdX
whipper cd info whipper info /dev/sdX

On single drive systems the /dev/sdX part would be optional. whipper setup would combine both whipper offset find and whipper drive analyze as both commands are only issued once per drive anyways (most of the times at least).

@RecursiveForest
Copy link
Contributor

There's a pretty good rework someone in IRC posted a while back as a gist, hopefully I can find it again. I like the idea of offset find and drive analyze falling under one command (with the option to say whipper setup --offset or --analyze/--defeat or something, if you need to run just one portion).

@waweic
Copy link

waweic commented Mar 15, 2018

For me, that also seems like a good opportunity to improve the usability of whipper. Should we keep the backwards compatibility? I think that would make the code pretty messy but could be useful for keeping some scripts (that are propably out there) compatible.

@RecursiveForest
Copy link
Contributor

I don't think backwards compatability is much of a concern. We're not providing an ABI or even a stable API, just top level commands that are ideally supposed to be as user friendly as possible.

We're not even at a stable 1.0 release (nor would I think that would be very good reason to keep backwards compatability either on its own), so I think it's appropriate to make large changes at this stage.

@JoeLametta
Copy link
Collaborator

JoeLametta commented Apr 6, 2018

In which milestone are we going to address this issue?

@JoeLametta JoeLametta added this to the 2.0 milestone Nov 3, 2018
@JoeLametta JoeLametta added Accepted Accepted issue on our roadmap Priority: medium Medium priority Design Design or UX/UI related Needed: discussion More discussion needed before anything can be done (or still no agreement has been reached) and removed enhancement labels Nov 12, 2018
@JoeLametta
Copy link
Collaborator

Is this still relevant?

@45054
Copy link
Author

45054 commented Sep 18, 2020

Well, I still think the syntax of whipper is quite odd so it'd be nice to see this being kept in the backlog. Maybe with a lower priority.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Accepted Accepted issue on our roadmap Design Design or UX/UI related Needed: discussion More discussion needed before anything can be done (or still no agreement has been reached) Priority: medium Medium priority
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants