Might make sense to have a shortcut for DOKKU_QUIET_OUTPUT?

Shortcut? We expose --quiet or -q to set it. Is that what you mean?

No I mean like an info2_quiet function. Not sure how useful that would be in practice though.

Ah! Yeah I was going to do something like that. Forgot between yesterday and today. 😄 I'll take a stab at it.

Please use just "name() {}" instead of "function name() {}". The use of function is the ugliest POSIX-incompatible bashism :)

I'd also suggest to prepend the logging functions (infoN, verbose, warn, etc) with a prefix (dokku_log_$funcname? whatever) to expose them as a sort of consistent public interface to external plugins. A namespace-style prefix would also avoid namespace clashes with functions that could be possibly defined by 3rd-party plugins.

Good job though, thanks!

This project is a bash project, and all the files reference the bash interpreter at the top, so I don't see any "bashisms" as bad :) Good call on the function prefixing though.

From http://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/functions.html:

Wherever there is repetitive code, when a task repeats with only slight variations in procedure, then consider using a function.

function function_name {
command...
}

or
function_name () {
command...
}

This second form will cheer the hearts of C programmers (and is more portable).

As mentioned, this is distinctly a bash project with no desire to be portable to other shells. That being said if there is additional push back, I don't have a strong position on modifying the function syntax.

@alessio i just came across this. https://github.com/progrium/bashstyle
@progrium backs you on not using function 😄

I suppose that's additional push back 😉 I'll refactor it.