Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merge 'file ls' and 'ls' commands #5497

Open
magik6k opened this issue Sep 20, 2018 · 5 comments
Open

Merge 'file ls' and 'ls' commands #5497

magik6k opened this issue Sep 20, 2018 · 5 comments

Comments

@magik6k
Copy link
Member

magik6k commented Sep 20, 2018

ipfs file ls is this command which duplicates half of the normal ls functionality and missing the other half (plus seems to be a bit outdated).

IMO we should just remove it and merge it's functionality with the normal ls

(first commit which mentions it: 434871b)

@kjzz
Copy link
Contributor

kjzz commented Sep 20, 2018

Hey @magik6k, if you did't finish this work and offical team decide to do this , i am willing to help you do for this. It also will help me learn more about ls and unixfs. Thx a lot.

@overbool
Copy link
Contributor

@magik6k currently, some go-unixfs functions are refactoring: #5217 and ipfs/go-unixfs#3.

so, I think this issue could wait until the issues mentioned above are fixed. However, it is also a good choice to solve this issue firstly.

WDYT?

@kjzz
Copy link
Contributor

kjzz commented Sep 20, 2018

The reason why i did not fix it immediately is this featuren may cause breanking.Also the issue should influence js-ipfs.So this issue need to be considered carefully by offical team,

@overbool
Copy link
Contributor

@kjzz I don't have any experience with js-ipfs. If this issue will influence js-ipfs, maybe it should be handled with care.

@overbool
Copy link
Contributor

overbool commented Sep 20, 2018

@magik6k In my own view, it's better to fix #5502 firstly.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants