-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.4k
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
Add hidden trust command to alias existing trust commands #16463
Conversation
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: rhatdan The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't see how this helps.
If you actually care for compatibility you need to match the actual commands with their input and output.
Per https://docs.docker.com/engine/reference/commandline/trust/
there is the inspect, key, revoke, sign, signer command, but no set or show which you add here.
It makes it more discoverable. We can look at fixing up the others. But for now users who do podman trust see no failure. |
I disagree, nobody uses |
Let's discuss at the next standup, and get consensus. My goal was to allow users to discover how Podman defines trust.
Versus
|
Signed-off-by: Daniel J Walsh <[email protected]>
For the record: consensus was to not create an alias but return a meaningful error to users that would direct them to |
Friendly ping. @rhatdan do you want to kick it over the finish line? |
A friendly reminder that this PR had no activity for 30 days. |
A friendly reminder that this PR had no activity for 30 days. |
Friendly ping, @rhatdan :^) |
Closing for now, since I have no time to work on it, and it would be complicated to implement. |
Signed-off-by: Daniel J Walsh [email protected]
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?