----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Clarke" <jcla...@cisco.com> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 2:50 PM
> On 9/15/17 09:21, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 02:54:31PM +0200, Benoit Claise wrote: > > > >> Now, if you are already a YANG expert, I guess you don't use the > >> tree output much. > > > > I think this has nothing to do with YANG experience. The intention of > > the tree format was to provide a concise overview of the structure of > > the schema tree. If we start to include type specifics that can get > > very detailed, the diagrams loose their value. > > I agree that clutter is bad. I had the same reservation, but I am also > working with models and sharing information with people where a tree > that has a _bit_ more information would be useful. > > I agree that showing this by default will be messy in some cases. And > maybe this has moved to a question more for you, Martin, in pyang's > GitHub channel. But if this output were put behind an option, would you > entertain a PR? Joe Less is more. I agree with Andy, Martin and Lada that it has got too cluttered. And as for line length, I cannot recall when last I read an I-D that did not break the rules for RFC. Tom Petch > > Joe > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
