Dan Pascu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Trent W. Buck wrote:
>> Matthias Kilian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> - Therefore, the complaint in the first URL you mentioned has a
>>> point (--help, or -? should produce *short* output). I'm not even
>>> sure wether the advanced options should be printed by darcs at all
>>> (this stuff belongs into the manpage).
>>
>> +1.
>>
>> The current help output is too long. Advanced help should be moved
>> to something like darcs help --advanced foo or darcs foo --full-help,
>> or omitted entirely.
>
> Expecting to fit everything in 80x24 [...]
I am not arguing for that. Rather, I am used to the separation between
- foo --help, a single page to job one's memory;
- man foo, a few pages with a short explanation for each subcommand
and switch;
- info foo, hundreds of pages of detailed explanation, use cases,
example code, indexes, appendices, and other book-length stuff.
Now that I look at "darcs help" and "darcs record --help" output again,
I see that they aren't as long as I remembered, though it's a lot longer
than it was when I started using darcs :-)
Mainly I was thinking of the case where someone is dropped into darcs
without much help, and is trying to work out what a particular command
is called. I can remember doing that with hg and git and being
completely overwhelmed because there are so many subcommands.
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
