Replace experimental uninstall command with uninstall command

[litong01]

Signed-off-by: Tong Li [email protected]

Please provide a description for what this PR is for.

And to help us figure out who should review this PR, please
put an X in all the areas that this PR affects.

• Configuration Infrastructure
• Docs
• Installation
• Networking
• Performance and Scalability
• Policies and Telemetry
• Security
• Test and Release
• User Experience
• Developer Infrastructure

[ericvn]

You want istioctl, not stioctl

[ericvn]

misspelled here as well.

[ericvn]

A couple comments.

• We use --skip-confirmation in a lot of the earlier pages, and then slip to using -y in later .md pages. We should be consistent in the .md pages. I don't know if @frankbu has a preference. While I like skip-confirmation, I don't think a lot of users would actually want to type the whole thing so may prefer the -y, but I don't know if we prefer using the more formal in the documentation.
• Does it make sense to simply use the --skip-confirmation/-y parameter instead of having to do the echo y? Not sure if we are testing that one gets prompted and we are entering y? Maybe we should have several of each to test both command paths?

[litong01]

A couple comments.

* We use --skip-confirmation in a lot of the earlier pages, and then slip to using -y in later .md pages. We should be consistent in the .md pages. I don't know if @frankbu has a preference. While I like skip-confirmation, I don't think a lot of users would actually want to type the whole thing so may prefer the -y, but I don't know if we prefer using the more formal in the documentation.

* Does it make sense to simply use the --skip-confirmation/-y parameter instead of having to do the echo y? Not sure if we are testing that one gets prompted and we are entering y? Maybe we should have several of each to test both command paths?

@ericvn yeah, I noticed that as well. That was the inconsistency in our docs. For document, I would prefer --skip-confirmation since it clearer than -y, having both in different places may also serve a purpose of testing both options, so I do not mind they appear at different locations.

For the pipe y thing, to be honest with you, I never liked use pipe to send a y to the command, in my view, that is really a hack, I would like to change it all to -y especially in the test scripts which no one sees, but Frank and I had a long discussion about this, where he won the argument, so that is what we had. but I can go with either.

[frankbu]

I would like to change it all to -y especially in the test scripts which no one sees, but Frank and I had a long discussion about this, where he won the argument, so that is what we had. but I can go with either.

I think you misunderstood my point. See here for clarification.

[frankbu]

I don't know if @frankbu has a preference.

I agree that users will want to use the short form -y, so using it everywhere would be my preferences.