Removed user interaction in setup.sh

[PerryBhandal]

The user interactivity in setup.sh when generating conf files has been removed. This was necessary so we can automate setup.sh for BuildBot.

I don't anticipate there will be any objection to doing this. If there is any objection, however, let me know and I can instead add a flag that disables interactivity in setup.sh. Either approach works.

[ryan1248]

Maybe let's have it be non-interactive by default but add a flag that
enables interactivity (e.g. -i)? To be honest though, I'm not sure how
important interactivity is at this point (it used to be necessary to get
things working). Thoughts?

-Ryan

On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 3:26 AM, Perry Bhandal notifications@github.com
wrote:

The user interactivity in setup.sh when generating conf files has been
removed. This was necessary so we can automate setup.sh for BuildBot.

I don't anticipate there will be any objection to doing this. If there is
any objection, however, let me know and I can instead add a flag that

disables interactivity in setup.sh. Either approach works.

You can merge this Pull Request by running

git pull https://github.com/NASA-Tensegrity-Robotics-Toolkit/NTRTsim remove_interaction

Or view, comment on, or merge it at:

#52
Commit Summary

• Removed user interaction.

File Changes

• M setup.sh
  https://github.com/NASA-Tensegrity-Robotics-Toolkit/NTRTsim/pull/52/files#diff-0
  (24)

Patch Links:

https://github.com/NASA-Tensegrity-Robotics-Toolkit/NTRTsim/pull/52.patch

https://github.com/NASA-Tensegrity-Robotics-Toolkit/NTRTsim/pull/52.diff

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#52.

[PerryBhandal]

Likely best to simply leave it non-interactive. I can't conceive of any case where it would pose a problem for a user. If we find out that's not the case later, we can always revert it and find a different approach for BB.

[ryan1248]

Sounds good to me!

On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Perry Bhandal notifications@github.com
wrote:

Likely best to simply leave it non-interactive. I can't conceive of any
case where it would pose a problem for a user. If we find out that's not
the case later, we can always revert it and find a different approach for
BB.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#52 (comment)
.