On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 08:01 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote: > On 01/06/2014 12:46 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 19:24 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote: > ... > >> As I mentioned before I only auto completed yum, remove is not party of > >> the auto completed commands. If remove should be there, then this is a > >> bug. I will file one. > >> > >> dnf has no auto completion and I have only seen reference to erase. The > >> man page of dnf does not mention remove (it mentions 'group remove'). > >> This should probably be added. I will file a bug on that one too. > >> > >> As a side not 'dnf --help' shows: > >> > >> '--version show Yum version and exit' > >> > >> which probably also is wrong. > >> > >> This is by no mean any excoriation of the dnf devs on my part. > >> > >> Three documentation "bugs" out of a side track of a thread is not a > >> terrible thread, in my opinion... > > > > If it exists for backward compatibility, it doesn't necessarily need to > > be documented. > > Ehh? Why? Could you elaborate? I don't see what needs elaborating. I'm not aware that the 11th commandment is "Every Subcommand Must Be Documented, Even Ones You Just Put In So People Still Using Syntax From The Old Tool You're Replacing Won't Have A Problem". If that's the only reason a synonym of a documented subcommand exists, what's the point of documenting it? Anyone who needs it doesn't need documentation to find it - that's the *point*, if they were going to read the documentation, they'd know the *new* subcommand - and anyone who reads the documentation doesn't stand to gain anything from learning that a subcommand has a synonym for backwards compatibility purposes. So, why go to the trouble? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
