Continuing issue 2389:
A safer solution would be to add a sub-command to
hugo list. An
outputsub-command would expand the scope of
lista bit, but I think
listis the right place to put this functionality. For example:
> hugo list output List all files Hugo shall write in outputDir
However, listing “what Hugo shall write” seems IMO not to address the issue of obsolete Hugo files in the
./public/ tree directly. (At least, I don’t see how.)
I say this, because I suppose you’re referring to files which Hugo currently calculates it will write to
outputDir. Presumably, Hugo would base this on the present state of its trees
Possibly you mean that Hugo would keep a log of its past writes (i.e., the file paths).
> hugo list output --orphans List all files in outputDir not part of Hugo
Listing “files…not part of Hugo” seems IMO not to address it directly, either. Of course, this list would include any other files and directories a Hugo user might have placed in
./public. That might be useful—or, it might be distracting.
How can Hugo know what particular files were “part of Hugo” in the past? For Hugo’s obsolete files, this seems the relevant question.
To address this small “problem” of obsolete files, some sub-command of
hugo list IMO could be implemented to print what Hugo has rendered (created or copied) in the past. This then would include the obsolete files rendered by Hugo.
Or, perhaps some sub-command of
hugo list IMO could be implemented to print only those obsolete files.
Then, in order to remove Hugo’s obsolete files, a user himself would type (if implemented):
rm `hugo list --obsolete`
Or, to remove Hugo’s rendered files—both obsolete and currently valid—a user himself would type (if implemented):
rm `hugo list --historical`
While they focus on helping power users like themselves, I suppose developers sometimes have a tendency to ignore some of the comfort issues felt by new and “unsophisticated” users.
In that light, implementing either of the commands:
hugo list output --historical; or
hugo list output --obsolete
IMO would help Hugo, by increasing its feeling of safety for some new or “unsophisticated” Hugo users (those who seem less comfortable with the command line), who have reported (in effect) a reluctance to type
rm -rf public/ themselves.
Naturally, I myself have no problem typing
rm -rf public/!