15 ms·
> This way I am explicitly exporting the dev environment without relying on the fact that everything is in order in my .env file (another approach would be to h
by another-dave 2y ago
> This way I am explicitly exporting the dev environment without relying on the fact that everything is in order in my .env file (another approach would be to have a .env.dev file)
What did you find lacking with the .env.dev approach? (Or if some tool doesn't support .env.dev could always symlink .env → .env.dev)
- mattrighetti 2y agoThe cons of that is that sometime I'd end up with 3 different files for different scenarios and in one particular case my tool only cared about the .env file, so I had to do a lot of `mv .env.dev .env` every time I had to switch to another env configuration.
- another-dave 2y agoBut running: ln -sf .env.dev .env doesn't seem any worse than running: envelope export dev ?
- Aeolun 2y agoWell… one is just a tad more readable.
- another-dave 2y agoMy personal approach is to favour more universal tools, so would prefer using symlinks & then adding a shell alias (or a package.json script) if I want to make it quicker to type. To each their own, though!