From owner-cvs-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 30 10:35:43 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-doc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E499216A4CE; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:35:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from abigail.blackend.org (blackend.org [212.11.35.229]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 108F043D2F; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:35:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marc@blackend.org) Received: from abigail.blackend.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by abigail.blackend.org (8.12.9/8.12.3) with ESMTP id hBUIZeb1093235; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:35:40 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from marc@abigail.blackend.org) Received: (from marc@localhost) by abigail.blackend.org (8.12.9/8.12.3/Submit) id hBUIZe9B093234; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:35:40 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from marc) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:35:40 +0100 From: Marc Fonvieille To: Tom Rhodes Message-ID: <20031230193540.F90071@abigail.blackend.org> References: <200312301749.hBUHnJjx004040@repoman.freebsd.org> <20031230132034.36281ba6.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20031230132034.36281ba6.trhodes@FreeBSD.org>; from trhodes@FreeBSD.org on Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 01:20:34PM -0500 X-Useless-Header: blackend.org X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.8-STABLE cc: doc-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/security chapter.sgml X-BeenThere: cvs-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the doc and www trees List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:35:44 -0000 On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 01:20:34PM -0500, Tom Rhodes wrote: > > > > - Use of &prompt.user; for % > > - Add a whitespace between prompt and command for consistency (this > > change could be done in a separate commit, but there the whitespace > > can be seen as content) > > - Use option tags for command line options instead of literal ones. > > Using option tags? I've been using literal for awhile since another > committer told me that they always use literal over option for > flags. Which one is preferred? > > FWIW, I think it was bmah who said that to me during my working > of the cron(8) section, but please don't quote me on that. :) > I see your point. Most of time I use literal tags but according to the FDP: "Use