On 20/06/2023 12.22, Karel Zak wrote: > On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 11:30:07AM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: >> On 20/06/2023 11.26, Karel Zak wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 12:14:28PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: >>>> sys-utils/hwclock-rtc.c | 86 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> sys-utils/hwclock.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++ >>>> sys-utils/hwclock.h | 5 +++ >>>> 3 files changed, 126 insertions(+) >>> >>> The patch looks good. Can we also get something for sys-utils/hwclock.8.adoc >>> (man page) and bash-completion/hwclock? ;-) >> >> Absolutely. I just didn't want to spend too much time on docs if the >> feature was deemed out-of-scope or if significant changes to e.g. the >> option names or other API was required. > > Good point. Option names are always the funny part ;-). > > At first glance, I thought that --voltage-low-clear was too long and > that it would be better to follow the ioctl names. However, upon > further consideration, I realize that we already have longer options > in util-linux. So perhaps, choosing --voltage-low-clear and > --voltage-low-read wouldn't be such a bad choice after all. > > What do you think? I prefer the current, shorter names. There's also precedent in the form of --param-get, which isn't --parameter-get. >> Can I send the docs as a separate follow-up patch, or should I send a v2 >> with all changes in one? > > Select what is better for you ;-) OK, thanks. I won't get to it anyway until probably tomorrow, and unless I hear otherwise, I'll just keep the current names etc. and send a separate doc update patch. Rasmus
