You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
It looks like the lstn in command is giving headhaches to some of our users.
Initially we thought about the lstn in command as our main entrypoint for repositories, that command is very interesting to execute because it goes in-depth with the scan by analysing all the transitive dependencies directly.
So I'm proposing to disable lstn in and suggest users to use lstn scan instead.
lstn scan gives the same kind of result of lstn in and takes the same input, the only difference is that it will not directly require all the transitive dependencies to the analysis request.
Once we finish the work on erborist we can re-enable the command and advise users on using it.
What do you all think?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
fntlnz
changed the title
Proposal> Disable the lstn in command in favor of lstn scan for now
Proposal: Disable the lstn in command in favor of lstn scan for now
Apr 12, 2023
It looks like the
lstn in
command is giving headhaches to some of our users.Initially we thought about the
lstn in
command as our main entrypoint for repositories, that command is very interesting to execute because it goes in-depth with the scan by analysing all the transitive dependencies directly.However to make it working properly we need to complete the work on https://github.com/listendev/erborist.
So I'm proposing to disable
lstn in
and suggest users to uselstn scan
instead.lstn scan
gives the same kind of result oflstn in
and takes the same input, the only difference is that it will not directly require all the transitive dependencies to the analysis request.Once we finish the work on erborist we can re-enable the command and advise users on using it.
What do you all think?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: