bash completions

[James McCoy]

Note that I don't actually use bash completions (nor bash) so I don't
have much investment in this one way or another.

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 11:20:21PM +0000, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
> I have had a look through the man pages of these scripts and I would
> classify them as follows:
> 
> default bash completion works
> =============================
> add-patch
> edit-patch
> dep3changelog
> diff2patches
> manpage-alert

Sounds good.

> not appropriate
> ===============
> annotate-output
> namecheck

ACK.

> would rather not touch VCs-specific scripts
> ===========================================

That's fine.  We don't need complete coverage. :) If someone else is
interested in it, they can do it.

> consider
> ========
> cowpoke
> dcmd
> debclean
> debcommit
> debdiff
> debpkg
> debrelease (err ...dput-ng?)

Not sure what the parenthetical statement is supposed to mean.

> deb-reversion
> desktop2menu
> dpkg-depcheck
> dpkg-genbuilddeps
> mergechanges
> nmudiff
> origtargz
> plotchangelog
> sadt
> suspicious-source
> tagpending
> what-patch
> who-permits-upload
> wrap-and-sort
> 
> packagenames would do as a stop gap
> ====================================
> debcheckout
> 
> over SSH?
> =========
> debrsign

If there's a way to leverage ssh's existing completion, that could be
handy.

Generally, I agree with your categorizations.

> The VCS-specific commands are the most interesting. I don't think
> VCS-specific commands deserve a lot of support. VCS systems historically
> have come and gone (though perhaps that itself is history and git will rule
> all.)
> 
> One approach would be to have commands like debcommit. So we would replace
> archpath and svnpath (if they are doing something similar. I'm not sure)
> with debpath that could support the same VCS systems as debcommit.
> 
> A second approach would be to have one command, say "debvcs" with
> subcommands like "path", "commit", "checkout" etc. It would probably also be
> OO with a base VCS class, and subclasses for git, cvs etc.
> 
> A third approach is to say that's all very nice, but I don't feel like
> contributing to that. I kind of like the third approach.

Yeah, let's not go overboard on utilities that are rarely used.  I doubt
there are many people (if any) using the cvs-* scripts still.  Ditto for
archpath.

I do use svnpath, but never interactively.  It's handled by debcommit.

Cheers,
-- 
James
GPG Key: 4096R/331BA3DB 2011-12-05 James McCoy <jamessan at debian.org>