From d5c435d3dc13ce3cd3f23927d06aea9ab363f439 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joey Hess Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 12:16:23 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] add --- ..._8ea993d1acc92f3aa9594ed8e2d3ec7d._comment | 30 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/todo/some_way_to_get_a_list_of_options_for_a_special_remote_of_a_given_type/comment_1_8ea993d1acc92f3aa9594ed8e2d3ec7d._comment diff --git a/doc/todo/some_way_to_get_a_list_of_options_for_a_special_remote_of_a_given_type/comment_1_8ea993d1acc92f3aa9594ed8e2d3ec7d._comment b/doc/todo/some_way_to_get_a_list_of_options_for_a_special_remote_of_a_given_type/comment_1_8ea993d1acc92f3aa9594ed8e2d3ec7d._comment new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..56431892f7 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/todo/some_way_to_get_a_list_of_options_for_a_special_remote_of_a_given_type/comment_1_8ea993d1acc92f3aa9594ed8e2d3ec7d._comment @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ +[[!comment format=mdwn + username="joey" + subject="""comment 1""" + date="2019-02-07T15:57:26Z" + content=""" +The remote options could be part of option parsing, and then --help would +list them. + +That was not originally done because the option parser was too crude +to support options specific not only to a given command but to a given type +of special remote, but with optparse-applicative, it could certianly be done. + +I don't know about supporting it in the external special remote protocol +though. Communicating the full power of applicative option parsing over +that pipe would add a great deal of complexity. +And it would need to retain backwards compatibility. + +Also, since git-annex doesn't know the name of the external special remote +to use until it's parsed the command line options, it wouldn't really +be possible to use any information from externals to configure the option +parsing. + +Kind of feels like the simplest thing with externals would be best, and +that's probably something like a "CONFIGSYNOPSIS" that lets the external +answer with a preformatted string describing its options for display to the +user. + +(Encryption needing to be explicitly disabled is a good thing, I think; it +avoids any confusion about it.) +"""]]