> > the available quota. Such behavior might make users confused, so, I believe it's > > better to have the reasons for such behavior better documented. > > > > Seems reasonable... > > > +option outputs verbose information, displaying quota values even when there is > > +no used space. Such behavior was chosen to be compliant with the 'quota' command > > +and for historical reasons. The > > ... though this sounds a bit unclear to me. Specifically, it sounds like > it could be saying that the behavior of -v has some historical > justification, when in fact, it is the absense of output in the > non-verbose case that we're trying to document (assuming I understand > the commit log correctly). > > As an example, something like the following sounds more clear to me: > > "The -v option outputs verbose information and includes quota limits > with no consumption. By default, xfs_quota does not display limits with > no consumption to maintain compatibility with the 'quota' command." > > ... but I suspect it could still be worded better. > Thank you for the comment Brian, I liked your idea, but, I'm also not the best person to say if this is enough or not, I'll wait for some other comments here, so I can send a V2 with our final decision. Cheers -- Carlos _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
