On 01/06/2014 08:13 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 08:01 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
On 01/06/2014 12:46 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
...
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?
The reason for me asking was that you accused me of "excoriating the dnf
devs" (a rather harsh accusation) just because I did not try
erase/remove. I looked at the documentation and used auto completion.
Why would I try a number of different sub-commands if they were not
documented?
If a thing is not documented, it does not exist. The first rule of
documenting. If it exist, but is mot documented, there's a fault in the
documentation. Even if the sub-commands are there for backward
compatibility, they need to be documented for people to find them.
Lars
--
Lars E. Pettersson <lars@xxxxxxxx>
http://www.sm6rpz.se/
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
