On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 23:13 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > 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? One thing I find a bit inconsistent, though, is that the manpage documents "dnf erase", but "dnf group remove". :) Picking one verb or the other and sticking with it seems advised. -- 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
