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

[WIP] Add subcommand to check for available updates without updating #1271

Closed
wants to merge 9 commits into from
Closed

[WIP] Add subcommand to check for available updates without updating #1271

wants to merge 9 commits into from

Conversation

ordovicia
Copy link

@ordovicia ordovicia commented Oct 22, 2017

This PR adds subcommand to check for available updates for installed toolchains and rustup itself without actually updating.

This PR is WIP because no consensus is built about what name is proper for the subcommand or option.
Currently I have chosen check subcommand.
I guess there are many candidates:

  • New subcommand
    • check
    • check-update
  • Adding an option to update subcommand
    • --no-download
    • --dry
    • --dry-run
  • and any other suggestions

Fixes #1249.

@Zteve
Copy link

Zteve commented Nov 28, 2017

I would love this feature; staging updates requires knowing when they are available.

My suggestion for a command structure is a subcommand of its own (like check but could be called query) which is able to be placed before another subcommand and which announces what that would do, without actually doing it. Then the call would be rustup query update, or rustup query self update, or whatever.

This allows the possibility of extending this to other subcommands in future, giving it its own special syntax in the first instance. Initially, rustup check would be an acceptable shorthand for rustup check update.

Options, like --no-download (too specific) and --dry-run (parochial) offer the opportunity for conflict with other options and aren't obvious enough. Special decorators (like the current +beta shorthand) should be avoided, since they, too, are non-obvious.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 16, 2018

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #1337) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@matthiaskrgr
Copy link
Member

Any updates on this? I would also really like to have this :)

@ordovicia
Copy link
Author

Sorry, I have done nothing recently.
This PR has many conflicts, so it may be somewhat hard to rebase on master.
Feel free to make a progress on this 😄

I now personally think that we should consider whether we really need this feature.

@Diggsey
Copy link
Contributor

Diggsey commented May 27, 2018

Closing due to inactivity - please feel feel free to open a new PR if you wish to continue working on this feature!

@Diggsey Diggsey closed this May 27, 2018
@ordovicia ordovicia deleted the check-update branch March 30, 2019 10:39
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants