Skip to content
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

drush config-pull @remote --target-dir=foo #3423

Closed
geek-merlin opened this issue Mar 1, 2018 · 5 comments
Closed

drush config-pull @remote --target-dir=foo #3423

geek-merlin opened this issue Mar 1, 2018 · 5 comments

Comments

@geek-merlin
Copy link
Contributor

geek-merlin commented Mar 1, 2018

Use case: As a site developer, i want to config-sync from a (fully installed) remote site to my local copy of the git repository. (Even if locally there is no bootstrapped drupal)

Something like:
drush config-pull @remote --target-dir=foo

@weitzman
Copy link
Member

weitzman commented Mar 4, 2018

@weitzman weitzman closed this as completed Mar 4, 2018
@geek-merlin
Copy link
Contributor Author

geek-merlin commented Mar 4, 2018

This looks like a misunderstanding to me.

It's a feature request for the config-pull command to not require a bootstrapped drupal.
Should the link tell me something about that?

@weitzman
Copy link
Member

weitzman commented Mar 4, 2018

Oops that comment was meant for another issue.

config-pull already doesn't fully bootstrap the destination. It does need to bootstrap the destination to the CONFIGURATION phase in order to read settings.php and determine the location of config dir on the target. Are you not able to have a configured settings.php? If not, you might have to write a script or command which calls config-export on the source and then call rsync with a specific destination.

Your feature request would not be hard to implement but I'm not sure its generally useful enough. Perhaps you can elaborate on your use case.

@weitzman weitzman reopened this Mar 4, 2018
@geek-merlin
Copy link
Contributor Author

We have very good experiences with a setup like this:

  • Sitebuilding happens on a containerized cloud server (with one installation per feature branch)
  • Git-fu happens on a local repo clone with better visual git tool support (and push-auto-deployment to the sitebuilding server)

This way we have no hassle with local dev environment. Forthermore - which is a relevant issue to me - the LAMP stack does not drain my laptop battery (of course i always need internet connection and its power consumption but that's not an issue).

This feature would allow us to
a) do all commits on local git, unifying the process
b) even work with code-write-protected installations, unifying the installation

I don't know how many people do this, and of course YMMV. For us it really makes a ton of sense!

@weitzman
Copy link
Member

weitzman commented Mar 6, 2018

That way of building makes good sense to me. See #3436. There is a Usage doc ther. I went with a rsync style declaration of the target path, not a --target-dir option.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants