Ingo Schwarze <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'd much prefer to have > >> the actions explained in the lesskey(1) man page. > > No way. Copying half of the less(1) manual to the lesskey(1) manual > would result in a maintenance nightmare.
I agree. This is not the first time one has to read two related pages to gain understanding, rather than reading one monster combined or duplicated page -- which can muddle up other learning patterns. > >>> however we still import less. i'd want to make sure that's > >>> not stepping on anyone's toes to make local changes. > > We forked the "less" program and made many extensive changes. > I think we are free to improve the documentation as we see fit. The main reason there was little pushback against forking less is because upstream releases were changing features regularily and we wanted to get off that train. We want a simpler program that does what it is supposed to do, doesn't adopt new features every 3 months, with a couple keystrokes changing behaviours and messing with people's heads. > >> I could also suggest changes upstream. > > If people want, they can forward relevant patches to Illumos, > which has a code base somewhat similar to ours. Forwarding patches > to Mark Nudelman is harder; i would expect many merge conflicts. > Then again, if anybody wants to spend time helping Mark, there is > certainly nothing wrong with that. I think this latter sentence is where the problem comes from -- it is a piece of software gathering features like a rolling stone. Here let me throw a turd in front of it's path....
