On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:08:47AM +0100, Rasto Levrinc wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Florian Haas <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 02/27/12 07:38, Rasto Levrinc wrote:
> >> I am talking about long shortdescs. E.g.
> >>
> >> <shortdesc lang="en">Specifies the iSCSI target implementation ("iet",
> >> "tgt" or "lio").</shortdesc>
> >>
> >> is way too long and it abbreviates to something like "Specifies the
> >> iSCSI..." in the GUI. You may not care about this, but many people do.
> >> So I am not nitpicking or anything, this meta-data happens to be my
> >> interface to the resource agents and it used to work quite well in the
> >> past. So generally I think that short-description shouldn't encode that
> >> they specify something, the name of the resource agent and possible
> >> values.
> >>
> >> <shortdesc lang="en">Implementation</shortdesc>
> >>
> >> or
> >>
> >> <shortdesc lang="en">iSCSI target implementation</shortdesc>
> >>
> >> would be enough in my opinion and it's nothing shameful to have short
> >> short-descriptions.
> >
> > So you're proposing either a shortdesc that's _identical_ to the
> > parameter name -- doesn't do a fat lot of good -- or one that contains
> > the parameter name plus the string "iSCSI target" which you've been
> > complaining about upthread? Does not compute.
> >
> > Let me suggest that this discussion is getting us nowhere. The
>
> So let me explain some more... :)
>
> > shortdescs stay as they are until someone comes up with a real improvement.
>
> I want them to stay as they were, that I could use them as parameter
> descriptions in the GUI. In the "implementation" case it could be that it is
> the same as the parameter name, or even "iSCSI Target Implementation" would
> fit in, in this case.
>
> I don't mind exception here and there, sometimes there is simply not a short
> way to describe something, and you can still see what it is with mouse-over,
> but to put there some "speech fillers" for no reason, breaks my usage for no
> reason.
>
> I can't use parameter names either, they are usually cryptic unix
> abbreviations, lower case with underscores that can't be localized.
>
> If you want to change that short descriptions should be more verbose, I
> guess there's nothing I can do, it will be just a small annoyance in couple
> of RAs.
I'd say that Rasto has right here. Is there a significant
difference between the two:
<shortdesc lang="en">Specifies the iSCSI target implementation
("iet", "tgt" or "lio").</shortdesc>
<shortdesc lang="en">iSCSI target implementation ("iet", "tgt" or
"lio")</shortdesc>
Isn't "Specifies" unnecessary? What purpose a parameter has other
than to specify something?
I'd also vote to drop '("iet", "tgt" or "lio")' too, it belongs
to the long description.
Cheers,
Dejan
> Rasto
>
>
> --
> Dipl.-Ing. Rastislav Levrinc
> [email protected]
> Linux Cluster Management Console
> http://lcmc.sf.net/
> _______________________________________________________
> Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
> http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
> Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
