Pedro Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As a user, the closer the information is to the command that generates > it, the better it is, no? While protocols and implementation details > should be documented elsewhere, others should be documented as close to > the user as possible.
Many, many, commands in tla generate that same output format. It's not just "tla changes". So either you repeat the same lengthy (and intrusive if that's not what you're looking for -- and I think after the 3rd or 4th time, it's _not_ what users are looking for) explanation many times in different commands, or you use a level of indirection to consolidate it in one place. I do not believe the latter is a burden for the user as long as it is well done. I think the "tla has too many commands" argument is just plain silly[1]. If there's a "problem" in this regard, it's more that the "tla help" command isn't structured enough. A rework of the help command to include an argument of some sort could both address this "issue", and offer a natural place for such things as explanations of the changeset format. [1] There _are_ commands which are probably redundant and should be consolidated, but that has nothing to do with the overall number of commands. -Miles -- Freedom's just another word, for nothing left to lose --Janis Joplin _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
