-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 12/6/13, 11:11 PM, Eitan Adler wrote: > On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Xin Li <delp...@delphij.net> > wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 >> >> On 12/6/13, 10:48 PM, Eitan Adler wrote: >>> On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Xin Li <delp...@delphij.net> >>> wrote: >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 >>>> >>>> On 12/6/13, 6:12 PM, Eitan Adler wrote: >>>>> On 12/6/13, delp...@freebsd.org <delp...@freebsd.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Synopsis: bc -q option not documented in man page >>>>>> >>>>>> State-Changed-From-To: open->closed State-Changed-By: >>>>>> delphij State-Changed-When: Sat Dec 7 01:06:05 UTC 2013 >>>>>> State-Changed-Why: This is intentional. Won't fix. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-doc->delphij >>>>>> Responsible-Changed-By: delphij Responsible-Changed-When: >>>>>> Sat Dec 7 01:06:05 UTC 2013 Responsible-Changed-Why: >>>>>> Take. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=184550 >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> freebsd-doc@freebsd.org mailing list >>>>>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-doc To >>>>>> unsubscribe, send any mail to >>>>>> "freebsd-doc-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> all options should be documented. An undocumented option >>>>> is a bug. If we don't want people using it we should >>>>> document as such. >>>> >>>> Well, no, it's not an undocumented option but a bug-for-bug >>>> compatibility shim. >>> >>> Eh? >>> >>>> However as Warren pointed out, it's a bug having it in >>>> synopsis and usage. >>> >>> It is not a bug. >>> >>>> This is fixed in r259058. >>> >>> This is a bug. >>> >>>> With our limited manpower, I think it's more important to >>>> improve our documentation in the direction that we describe >>>> our stuff better, like how to write a vt(4) driver, etc. >>> >>> I agree that we need better documentation for our own >>> features; however, this is not a dichotomy. >>> >>>> rather than documenting the bug-for-bug features which would >>>> just give the reader an impression like "I can write program >>>> according to GNU command line standard and expect the BSD >>>> people to diligently implement bug-for-bug compatibility". >>> >>> A similar discussion occurred when we implemented '==' for >>> test(1). If a program accepts some flag as input, or some text >>> as input, it must be documented. We may document it as a >>> non-portable, to be avoided feature, but it should not be left >>> alone. >> >> Fair enough, how about this? > > Works for me. Thank you very much!
Ok, committed as 259060 and thanks for your patience. Cheers, -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIbBAEBCgAGBQJSosqEAAoJEJW2GBstM+nsneIP+ND+hIQUUFP6ndKvJqvBvqst gOLdX/hLA98Z8htPv4CIY/gz5UCVdatP8gtDRXgu/RE6QV3ZEMJz1pGLd16ZN+y5 SsCckwYNIibzt4zj3X1Yx+yKIf9FI80r6X2fGAh6LlyISI86QNCeFs5BU6ycXyMp FOhDDrJ0byoelly1kjAZiECuEwr+WcxtR7aSn4So7HT0/efzl16oSyb+lmyDdx+8 un88cFlArtpbn0MuQ390LE6LEEbQh8pvOh5dzR1yNgdn+bNkjnIUYrxc8sb7PAJ4 VZ+06KEojLThiVcvVdKJpm6MHEJZ6fJOeOevXm1kjpchbzTVAaFBpX/emkP7XR2t Nfj5MxmmMEFpjWMmYslAq9VZgQwDKxP6CR2Y8Cv7FVICCse1FAnmd5TSVxK4zM5H W5bzFBfLQTVX8P5PV2Bjc4Jz5SHeIQgfLcE2eLwNXe5MASC6eBLToK93BDCdGYxH 8GY2aIlJfVUbbLG0BY3pYGGGa0i77Fh00+qGQb/rguteYrCqCF1908a62M56GiOR rW6KqLSSu7Uv9lIKavp9ngLNwI4D7qAXz2J3U0lUclZ10lbsAA6EvFDAdi9hQ/Py XafPAvdRg+IkdYZLp0Ll0NZJzOJsRp/mTIkUalzfOEYsy0DGC/G9qHIbDOZmsZHo DzIiN1lXnjXdEXZgeUw= =/eYz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ freebsd-doc@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-doc To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-doc-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
