Is BASH completion needed and useful?

[maximilien]

In what area(s)?

completion command

Classifications:

/kind usage

Ask your question here:

We added zsh completion but it was useless so it's removed in #439 and @rhuss raised the question if we should also remove BASH completion since it's not also too useful.

Separating the two concerns with this issue. We can discuss BASH completion's merits or lack of here and allow #439 to be merged independently.

[maximilien]

@sixolet any opinion on this?

[rhuss]

My feeling is, that completion is useful if we would also add context-sensitive information (like completing on actual service/revision names for e.g. kn service describe). The icing on the cake would be to over e.g. tag names for completion when doing a kn service update --traffic <tab>.

Having only the auto-generated completed is a nice add-on if it works (and it doesn't for zsh completion as it breaks when a help message contains a [ because it then generates invalid shell scripts). We could restrict ourselves to bash-completion, but for now, I think the maintenance costs outweigh the benefits.

[navidshaikh]

We have the spf13/cobra dep update merged with zsh completion fix, I'll add back the zsh completion.