[v4.6] fix(env): parsing --env incorrect in cli

[TomSweeneyRedHat]

Backports a last-minute issue found and corrected this morning
on environment variable handling. It didn't go cleanly, so I've
also backported two other recent commits to make it clean that
also are related. The commits in order of submission are:

feat(env): support multiline in env-filefeat(env): support multiline in env-file - 170a786
Check tty flag to set default terminal in Env - 53d44a6
fix(env): parsing --env incorrect in cli - 7ce654f

Signed-off-by: Black-Hole1 [email protected]
Signed-off-by: TomSweeneyRedHat [email protected]

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

Support multiline in `--env-file`

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: TomSweeneyRedHat

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:

• OWNERS [TomSweeneyRedHat]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[TomSweeneyRedHat]

@vrothberg @BlackHole1 PTAL

[vrothberg]

@edsantiago PTAL

Ed has found some more issues, so I prefer him to weigh in.

[edsantiago]

Please do not merge this. #19096 never made it into 4.6, so this "fix" is not necessary. And, env-file is pretty badly broken IMO (#19565), we need to get it properly sorted out.

I may be mistaken, so I'm leaving this open but with lots of DO-NOT-MERGE tags. If someone believes this code is absolutely needed in 4.6, please correct me.

[BlackHole1]

I agree with @edsantiago's perspective. Currently, there are some disagreements regarding the implementation of env-file. We should wait until we reach a consensus before making a decision.

[Luap99]

This should not get backported. It has a high risk of breakage which makes it not suitable for a patch release IMO.
We can figure out exact semantics for 4.7 as @edsantiago reported some problems.

[rhatdan]

I agree if there was no change in this functionality in 4.6 then it should NOT be back ported.

[TomSweeneyRedHat]

Sold, I was backporting just based on Matt's note, and then what I thought was needed to keep the commits happy at the end. We'll leave this to 4.7 then. Thanks for the discussion.