[Rubygems-developers] Suggestions regarding new CLI
gsinclair at soyabean.com.au
Sun Jun 20 18:12:24 EDT 2004
On Sunday, June 20, 2004, 8:31:46 PM, Chad wrote:
> # 2. 'gem --version' should work like a normal command line app. My
> # preference is to do what --rubygems-info does currently.
> # Oops, it does work, but it's not documented anywhere, and it
> # doesn't return anything useful. At the moment, it displays
> # 'gem2 1.8.2'.
> Is that the ruby version?
It is. But that's not very useful.
> # 3. 'gem install log4r' is far preferable to 'gem install -n log4r'.
> # The same goes for all or nearly all other commands. In cases like
> # this, 'log4r' is not an *option*, it's part of the command.
> I agree with that. I assumed it was because it was difficult to parse
> that way.
It could be. I'll take a look. But there could also be a reason for
it, as in 'gem command -n X1 -n X2 -n X3'.
> # 8. This appears in the output for 'gem --help uninstall':
> # -v, --version VERSION Specify version of gem to install
> # Note the typo. I don't know whether this is merely superficial.
> I may be too jet lagged...what's the typo?
It should be "Specify version of gem to UNinstall".
> # 9. Commands should be able to be abbreviated. This can be either by
> # specifying abbreviations like CVS does (e.g. commit -> ci), or by
> # allowing unambiguous commands (q, qu, que all resolve to query).
> I prefer abbreviations, but generally aggree that would be a nice feature.
Do you mean explicit or dynamic abbreviations that you prefer? I'm
pretty easy either way.
Anyway, I'm glad there's broad agreement there. I'll get to work on
More information about the Rubygems-developers