John Sonnenschein wrote: > On 24-Jul-09, at 11:01 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > > Roland Mainz wrote: > >> Garrett D'Amore wrote: > >>> Alan Coopersmith wrote: [snip] > > I will say just one more thing. Where it not for the --man, -- > > nroff, and --html options, I think I would unhesitatingly give this > > case a +1. I think the rest of the case has a great deal of > > technical merit, and I actually would like to see the changes > > integrated -- just without manual pages integrated into the binaries. > > I've got a question about this... > > Whose responsibility is it to update the man pages and --man command > then? The people whose jobs it is to update man pages, or the people > whose jobs it is to update the command line utility? > > Basically if a new flag is added in the future for some reason, how > will one synchronize the man pages?
There are two independent methods ([1] is mandatory, [2] acts as "safeguard"): 1. If we putback into the OS/Net gate and had an ARC case with manual page changes associated with it the putback rules require that we notify the documentation folks at Sun to get the matching manpages updated (e.g. we need to document a milestone/build id when the mapage changes will be completed (which is usually required not to further away than two builds from the code putback build id)) 2. If we add new options we edit the internal string passed to |libast::getopts()| from which the output for --man/--help/--html/--nroff/--version/etc. is generated from. Once the new code runs we have script in place which compares the output against the last output stored in a Subversion tree and warns us if there is a difference in the options part. ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 3992797 (;O/ \/ \O;)
