-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.8k
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
convert: add option to symlink instead of copying #2326
Conversation
As proposed in #2324.
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.
This looks great! I left just a few suggestions for the documentation.
transcoding, instead of copying them; \ | ||
this may cause files in your library to \ | ||
be modified, if options such as "embed" \ | ||
are enabled') |
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.
The in-line help string should usually be shorter than this—just one phrase is fine. We can leave the full detail for the documentation.
step will cause the original files to be modified as well if ``link`` is | ||
enabled. For this reason, it is highly recommended not use to ``link`` and | ||
``embed`` at the same time. | ||
Default: ``false``. |
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.
There's some identical text between this and the -l option. For maintainability, could you please just leave one copy and refer to one from the other? For example, you might just say "see the description of the link
option below" or something.
@sampsyo Thanks for the quick feedback. I did think it felt quite lengthy when I wrote it, but I wanted to ensure users are aware that embed (which is on by default) and link used together may cause the original files to be modified. Maybe a better solution would be to add an "are you sure?" prompt in the code when this combination of options is detected; what do you think? |
Sure! Or here are two other ideas:
|
As proposed in beetbox#2324. Updated commit from beetbox#2326. Co-authored-by: Vexatos <[email protected]>
As proposed in beetbox#2324. Updated commit from beetbox#2326. Co-authored-by: Vexatos <[email protected]>
As proposed in #2324.