From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 7 06:48:57 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 984E38C1 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 2013 06:48:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qe0-x22d.google.com (mail-qe0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c02::22d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C216184F for ; Sat, 7 Dec 2013 06:48:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qe0-f45.google.com with SMTP id 6so1304214qea.32 for ; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 22:48:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=eitanadler.com; s=0xdeadbeef; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=DKIIQLv/7rVu0QaxykEFt/MoFWzFdR6jmtHSyTOASG4=; b=V3mc/zXyPnUbG24hdwSvjWG4ROtdW0o0MNswc5XScP0oWVyV3Z+pV6owD9K5hPXTNH lQausOMXi3XoEA4puzqPzSWnoDpzKJfO9792btXLdbLJV19sg7mqj0v6Pp/eGAP+9/Df aGoXvwLvdgz0WnHaj+LgdFr+wfsH8FdrMtZPE= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=DKIIQLv/7rVu0QaxykEFt/MoFWzFdR6jmtHSyTOASG4=; b=mCd8jb9n53IwcejDa8754+lank8H0HU2caFEI7LDzF93xZRmbrechqQU1nUchD5e4J lublzcliYb75sJgOQIdllHtKtoEf0jjCwt+NRU/THeFsabXFSbEMEgan/NdvUwITnx/R SSI8JFWcYYrBGmuGyBWQU+nHpNrQtJxgD8ICBs5sypzPjDuomrhTbEmpPx3FuMHga4kD WtMHc+I5ta+zN3ZQ6NkPdfJuF7UEiDBIuH6GWEEnI3yoq889XITpJYBsxTYgJwaWbEzs 9/IFl6YEm8bnSy5CKOGlBfmN/0vTdBGKyhxicEGrs/e57TdKNrZMR6wwVYpVaPqs6jHD tLww== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmWdJ1Ic2xrB5jss7JtXIQwDx0KbeCWtsEg5OZqBjgLZ0nMWT59NqCH1dYb59zQFTDL9ijt X-Received: by 10.229.194.1 with SMTP id dw1mr13322524qcb.20.1386398936462; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 22:48:56 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.96.86.42 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 22:48:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <52A2C3C3.9010703@delphij.net> References: <201312070107.rB717SAW015758@freefall.freebsd.org> <52A2C3C3.9010703@delphij.net> From: Eitan Adler Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 01:48:26 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: docs/184550: bc -q option not documented in man page To: Xin LI Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: "freebsd-doc@freebsd.org" , Xin LI , "Ronald F. Guilmette" X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2013 06:48:57 -0000 On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Xin Li wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > On 12/6/13, 6:12 PM, Eitan Adler wrote: >> On 12/6/13, delphij@freebsd.org wrote: >>> Synopsis: bc -q option not documented in man page >>> >>> State-Changed-From-To: open->closed State-Changed-By: delphij >>> State-Changed-When: Sat Dec 7 01:06:05 UTC 2013 >>> State-Changed-Why: This is intentional. Won't fix. >>> >>> >>> Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-doc->delphij >>> Responsible-Changed-By: delphij Responsible-Changed-When: Sat Dec >>> 7 01:06:05 UTC 2013 Responsible-Changed-Why: Take. >>> >>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=184550 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> freebsd-doc@freebsd.org mailing list >>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-doc To >>> unsubscribe, send any mail to >>> "freebsd-doc-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >>> >> >> all options should be documented. An undocumented option is a >> bug. If we don't want people using it we should document as such. > > Well, no, it's not an undocumented option but a bug-for-bug > compatibility shim. Eh? > However as Warren pointed out, it's a bug having > it in synopsis and usage. It is not a bug. > This is fixed in r259058. This is a bug. > With our limited manpower, I think it's more important to improve our > documentation in the direction that we describe our stuff better, like > how to write a vt(4) driver, etc. I agree that we need better documentation for our own features; however, this is not a dichotomy. > rather than documenting the > bug-for-bug features which would just give the reader an impression > like "I can write program according to GNU command line standard and > expect the BSD people to diligently implement bug-for-bug compatibility". A similar discussion occurred when we implemented '==' for test(1). If a program accepts some flag as input, or some text as input, it must be documented. We may document it as a non-portable, to be avoided feature, but it should not be left alone.