From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 23 22:57:55 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F25316A4CE; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 22:57:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.des.no (flood.des.no [217.116.83.31]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF51343D1D; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 22:57:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: by smtp.des.no (Pony Express, from userid 666) id D79B15309; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 07:57:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from dwp.des.no (des.no [80.203.228.37]) by smtp.des.no (Pony Express) with ESMTP id 84C255308; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 07:57:43 +0100 (CET) Received: by dwp.des.no (Postfix, from userid 2602) id 0CB8533C6F; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 07:57:43 +0100 (CET) To: peter.lai@uconn.edu References: <20040223065444.GP23219@cowbert.2y.net> <20040223212428.GA28136@cowbert.2y.net> From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 07:57:42 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20040223212428.GA28136@cowbert.2y.net> (Peter C. Lai's message of "Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:24:28 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.090024 (Oort Gnus v0.24) Emacs/21.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on flood.des.no X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.63 cc: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org cc: chu@gpi.ru Subject: Re: docs/40196: man find does not describe -follow X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 06:57:55 -0000 "Peter C. Lai" writes: > -follow works on the command line. Is it just another method to > invoke -H? I find it strange that the only mention of -follow is in > the STANDARDS section, since that's not the most intutitive place to > look for it (yes, I did read it); I guess the misspelling threw me > off since there's no -h option (only -H) :) Shouldn't we at least > put in a line for -follow saying "another name for -H"? It isn't "another name for -H", and the reason why is explained in the STANDARDS section. Please read it again. If you insist on documenting -follow, make sure to - document it in the correct section (PRIMARIES, not DESCRIPTION) - note that it does not behave like other primaries do - note that it should not be used except for compatibility reasons - also document -depth and -xdev in the same manner DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no