`no-highlight` language superseded about docs HOT 3 OPEN

This proposal LGTM @janbrasna 💪

I think the rationale behind fastlane/fastlane#12735 was that CLI commands are different than sh syntax highlighting. CLI commands (plain text commands) technically don't have a syntax highlighting AFAIK, while Shell scripts (the programming language) do. There's an argument that can be made about CLI commands being sh commands though 😅

I personally don't feel strongly about going either way. Personally I use sh syntax highlighting even for CLI, in my repos/projects 😅 so that would be ok by me.

Perhaps @revolter could chime in here too, regarding that PR 🤗

But yeah the only thing I'd keep in mind there is that all of those …/generated/… file paths shouldn't be edited in this repo, but in the fastlane/fastlane repo instead 🙏

Thanks for taking a stab at this, @janbrasna ! 🙌

from docs.

Yeah, really sorry for not providing a rationale back then.

Unfortunately, I can't recall my thinking behind those changes, and I can only assume that I made that decision due to a lack of experience.

As such, I would definitely go with sh as well for CLI commands!

Let me know if you need any help with this.

from docs.

But I'd need more context from @rogerluan behind fastlane/fastlane#12735 (as there's no rationale in the PR description) — why not sh there?

Q: if that changes upstream to sh incl. tests et al. … is there a any avenue appropriate where to post this style change so folks used to the old class name will be notified before having their tests failed for the non-functional no-highlight keyword being used?

from docs.