On 2018-02-18 03:55:51 -0600 (-0600), Monty Taylor wrote: [...] > I'd honestly argue in favor of assuming bash and using 'source' > because it's more readable. We don't make allowances for alternate > shells in our examples anyway. > > I personally try to use 'source' vs . and $() vs. `` as > aggressively as I can. > > That said - I completely agree with fungi on the description of > the tradeoffs of each direction, and I do think it's valuable to > pick one for the docs.
Yes, it's not my call but I too would prefer more readable examples over a strict adherence to POSIX. As long as we say somewhere that our examples assume the user is in a GNU bash(1) environment and that the examples may require minor adjustment for other shells, I think that's a perfectly reasonable approach. If there's a documentation style guide, that too would be a great place to encourage examples following certain conventions such as source instead of ., $() instead of ``, [] instead of test, an so on... and provide a place to explain the rationale so that reviewers have a convenient response they can link for bulk "improvements" which seem to indicate ignorance of our reasons for these choices. -- Jeremy Stanley
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
