On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 11:55:32AM +0600, Ivan Shmakov wrote: > >>>>> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > and it's on the roadmap for bzr too, though not done yet. > > > (I actually like having to clone the whole remote repository, though, > > because it effectively gives me an automatic backup. I have regretted > > the fact that Arch didn't give me this, > > GNU Arch allows this either. You could use $ tla > archive-mirror, or just `rsync' the remote repository.
Yes, I know it allows it, but it doesn't *give* you it as standard. It's impossible to have an un-backed-up bzr (or, for that matter, git) repository as long as even a single person has made a branch of it. > >> Why not --audit and --warnings[=...]? The former given without the > >> latter will behave as if the latter is given without an optional > >> argument, while the latter given without the former will just switch > >> Groff warnings on, while not adding the `-maudit'. > > > That produces strange semantics, though, IMO: --warnings would enable > > the checks themselves, and all that --audit would do in addition to > > --warnings would be to switch some particular warnings *off*, which > > isn't what "audit" means! I'd rather have --audit be the main switch > > (easy to use, simple to explain) and have something else to modify it > > for experts who want fine control. > > It seems like we have some misunderstanding here. There's no misunderstanding; I understood exactly what you were proposing. > The cases I suggest are as follows: > > $ man --warnings[=WHICH] -- enable warnings, either a default > set, or as specified; > > $ man --audit -- enable `-maudit', and a default set of > warnings; > > $ man --audit --warnings -- completely the same; > > $ man --audit --warnings=WHICH -- enable `-maudit', and a > specified set of warnings. > > So, `--audit' doesn't switch any warnings off. Now, think about the difference between: man --warnings=mac,escape ... and: man --warnings=mac,escape --audit What does --audit do *in addition* to --warnings? Precisely one thing: it adds this to the groff input stream: .de IX .. The sole effect of that is to disable a warning! I think these semantics are bizarre and I would prefer to avoid them. Increasingly, I think we'd be better off with --audit taking an optional argument to specify the groff warnings to be enabled, rather than trying to split this into two options. > > It had also occurred to me that 'man -A' would be free as a short > > spelling of 'man --audit', although it would be worth checking the > > other GNU/Linux man implementation to make sure it doesn't clash with > > something there. > > That's a minor issue. I'd expect that scripts would use > `--audit' (for `man' users not familiar with Debian `man-db' to > understand easily), and I don't feel that `man --audit' will be > used too frequently outside of scripts. I expect and hope that its use by Lintian, and its mention in the Lintian check documentation, will encourage maintainers to use it to check their manual pages. Of course only quite dedicated maintainers will do so, but that's still a substantial number. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
