The current separate command lists in /znc and in various modules may be hard to use for newbies and for people coming from other bouncers
Kult wrote up this new hierarchy of commands:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjDbfLqX2pk1dGZTQmFtX20zc19qZm5NcllXNjZEbmc#gid=0
So, let's improve it
##
<bountysource-plugin>
---
There is a **[$10 open bounty](https://www.bountysource.com/issues/914105-hierarchy-of-znc-commands-by-kult?utm_campaign=plugin&utm_content=tracker%2F1759&utm_medium=issues&utm_source=github)** on this issue. Add to the bounty at [Bountysource](https://www.bountysource.com/?utm_campaign=plugin&utm_content=tracker%2F1759&utm_medium=issues&utm_source=github).
</bountysource-plugin>
<!-- github-sync-id:19524927 -->
IMHO both *status and *controlpanel are overloaded with commands. There's overlap between the two, and it's difficult to remember which one provides which command. Instead of making the command hierarchy deeper, an alternative option could be to use logically named receivers; *user(s) for user management, *network(s) for network management, and so on.
IMHO both *status and *controlpanel are overloaded with commands. There's overlap between the two, and it's difficult to remember which one provides which command. Instead of making the command hierarchy deeper, an alternative option could be to use logically named receivers; *user(s) for user management, *network(s) for network management, and so on.
<!-- github-comment-id:58795571 -->
There's overlap between the two, and it's difficult to remember which one provides which command.
👍
*user(s) for user management, *network(s) for network management, and so on.
Do you mean *user controlling yourself and *users for also controlling other users and network controlling current network etc.?
> There's overlap between the two, and it's difficult to remember which one provides which command.
:+1:
> *user(s) for user management, *network(s) for network management, and so on.
Do you mean *user controlling yourself and *users for also controlling other users and network controlling current network etc.?
<!-- github-comment-id:58797852 -->
Do you mean *user controlling yourself and *users for also controlling other users and network controlling current network etc.?
Yeah, exactly. If they would be implemented as modules, *network (get, set...) would be a network module, and *networks (list, add, remove...) would be supposedly a user module.
*user and *network would be convenient for managing your own settings and the current network. You could also load modules without the need of specifying --type=user or --type=network.
> Do you mean *user controlling yourself and *users for also controlling other users and network controlling current network etc.?
Yeah, exactly. If they would be implemented as modules, *network (get, set...) would be a network module, and *networks (list, add, remove...) would be supposedly a user module.
*user and *network would be convenient for managing your own settings and the current network. You could also load modules without the need of specifying --type=user or --type=network.
<!-- github-comment-id:58803522 -->
They could be static/built-in/unloadable modules or maybe even integrated to core to avoid that.
It's just to get a nice logical hierarchy that is easier to use. It's not that different from Kult's proposal, just avoids having to build hierarchical levels within *status, and should nicely reduce the amount of arguments:
/msg *status defaults set bindhost znc.in
vs.
/msg *user set bindhost znc.in
or
/msg *status networks set $user $network bindhost znc.in
vs.
/msg *network set bindhost znc.in
They could be static/built-in/unloadable modules or maybe even integrated to core to avoid that.
It's just to get a nice logical hierarchy that is easier to use. It's not that different from Kult's proposal, just avoids having to build hierarchical levels within *status, and should nicely reduce the amount of arguments:
```
/msg *status defaults set bindhost znc.in
vs.
/msg *user set bindhost znc.in
```
or
```
/msg *status networks set $user $network bindhost znc.in
vs.
/msg *network set bindhost znc.in
```
<!-- github-comment-id:60043935 -->
Blocking a user prevents them from interacting with repositories, such as opening or commenting on pull requests or issues. Learn more about blocking a user.
The current separate command lists in /znc and in various modules may be hard to use for newbies and for people coming from other bouncers
Kult wrote up this new hierarchy of commands:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjDbfLqX2pk1dGZTQmFtX20zc19qZm5NcllXNjZEbmc#gid=0
So, let's improve it
--- There is a **[$10 open bounty](https://www.bountysource.com/issues/914105-hierarchy-of-znc-commands-by-kult?utm_campaign=plugin&utm_content=tracker%2F1759&utm_medium=issues&utm_source=github)** on this issue. Add to the bounty at [Bountysource](https://www.bountysource.com/?utm_campaign=plugin&utm_content=tracker%2F1759&utm_medium=issues&utm_source=github).IMHO both *status and *controlpanel are overloaded with commands. There's overlap between the two, and it's difficult to remember which one provides which command. Instead of making the command hierarchy deeper, an alternative option could be to use logically named receivers; *user(s) for user management, *network(s) for network management, and so on.
👍
Do you mean *user controlling yourself and *users for also controlling other users and network controlling current network etc.?
Yeah, exactly. If they would be implemented as modules, *network (get, set...) would be a network module, and *networks (list, add, remove...) would be supposedly a user module.
*user and *network would be convenient for managing your own settings and the current network. You could also load modules without the need of specifying --type=user or --type=network.
So there will be overlap between *status and *user ?
Why leave duplicate *status commands at all? The amount of commands should be reduced to make it easier to grasp.
For example, LoadModule needs to be there, if *user module is not loaded.
They could be static/built-in/unloadable modules or maybe even integrated to core to avoid that.
It's just to get a nice logical hierarchy that is easier to use. It's not that different from Kult's proposal, just avoids having to build hierarchical levels within *status, and should nicely reduce the amount of arguments:
or
Related: https://github.com/jpnurmi/znc-admin
Another proposal: