Re: [Fab-user] dryrun?

[Jeff Forcier]

Hi Jorge,

Apologies for the wait, and the semi bad news -- I think I will hold
off on putting this in, for now.

I very much like the idea, but prefer that such a feature fulfill two
requirements:

1. Don't actually connect, at all, for any reason (arguments can
probably be made against this, however.)
2. Apply equally to all operations.

Your patch is, naturally, nice and simple, but it only applies to
run/sudo, not to put/get/local. And in order to apply the dry-run idea
to some of those later 3, such as put(), some nontrivial
refactoring/rewriting would need to be done in order to meet #1 above.

So I'd rather do this right or not at all, and so I'm pushing it off
to be done after 0.9 final goes out the door. Sorry! :) It will
definitely be in for 1.0.

Best,
Jeff

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 9:48 PM, Jorge Vargas<address@hidden> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Jeff Forcier<address@hidden> wrote:
>>> So do you think dryrun can go in?
>>
>> Chances are good that I will get around to examining outstanding
>> submissions sometime this weekend, and I'll let you know what my
>> decision is :) I expect it will go in in one form or another.
>>
> Great news, that means I don't need to remove all my instances of it :)
>
>> Best,
>> Jeff
>>
>