On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 07:31:42PM +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote: > 20.02.2024 21:48, Daniel P. Berrangé: > > > This ends up looking a bit muddled together. I don't think we > > need repeat 'qemu-img <cmd>' twice, and could add a little > > more whitespace > > > > eg instead of: > > > > $ ./build/qemu-img check --help > > qemu-img check: Check basic image integrity. Usage: > > qemu-img check [-f FMT | --image-opts] [-T CACHE_MODE] [-r] [-u] > > [--output human|json] [--object OBJDEF] FILENAME > > Arguments: > > ...snip... > > > > have it look like > > > > $ ./build/qemu-img check --help > > Check basic image integrity. > > > > Usage: > > > > qemu-img check [-f FMT | --image-opts] [-T CACHE_MODE] [-r] [-u] > > [--output human|json] [--object OBJDEF] FILENAME > > > > Arguments: > > ...snip... > > Here's the current way how `create' help text looks like: > > $ ./qemu-img create --help > Create and format qemu image file. Usage: > qemu-img create [-f FMT] [-o FMT_OPTS] [-b BACKING_FILENAME [-F > BACKING_FMT]] > [--object OBJDEF] [-u] FILENAME [SIZE[bkKMGTPE]] > Arguments: > -h, --help > print this help and exit > -q, --quiet > quiet operations > -f, --format FMT > specifies format of the new image, default is raw > -o, --options FMT_OPTS > format-specific options ('-o list' for list) > -b, --backing BACKING_FILENAME > stack new image on top of BACKING_FILENAME > (for formats which support stacking) > -F, --backing-format BACKING_FMT > specify format of BACKING_FILENAME > -u, --backing-unsafe > do not fail if BACKING_FMT can not be read > --object OBJDEF > QEMU user-creatable object (eg encryption key) > FILENAME > image file to create. It will be overridden if exists > SIZE > image size with optional suffix (multiplies in 1024) > SIZE is required unless BACKING_IMG is specified, > in which case it will be the same as size of BACKING_IMG > > Maybe it's a good idea to add newlines around the "syntax" part, > ie, after "Usage:" and before "Arguments:". I don't think it needs > extra newlines between each argument description though, - this way > it becomes just too long. > > What do you think?
I still prefer to have more vertical whitespace, as I find it harder to read through without it. I was using the typical man page option / usage formatting as a guide in my feedback. Still, it would be useful to see what other maintainers think, as I'm just one data point. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|