Re: [libvirt] consistency of virsh help output

I didn't say we should take one way or another; neither I've said I'm going to. I merely wanted to point out at differences, which I think, create a bit of confusion. As suggested in my hasty reply, perhaps we should have a vote or poll. It doesn't seem to be easy decision to me.

> attach-disk [--domain] <string> [--source] <string> [--target] <string> > [--driver <string>] This is domain of man pages and might be (the best) understood. But it's damn-o-damn long. And although we are way past 80 char terminals, I still tend to keep within this limit etc. :) > attach-disk <domain> <source> <target> [<driver>] When understood, it's ok. And the majority of virsh commands have this format; except 19; I would stick with it.

0001-Unify-virsh-help-synopsis-output.patch>From 2ce39caeb82a9a0b2dccc409ac986648c4017191 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Zdenek Styblik <stybla(a)turnovfree.net&gt; Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 08:50:43 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Unify virsh help synopsis output Signed-off-by: Zdenek Styblik <stybla(a)turnovfree.net&gt; --- tools/virsh.c | 4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/virsh.c b/tools/virsh.c index 1f820e8..cc8efcf 100644 --- a/tools/virsh.c +++ b/tools/virsh.c @@ -10596,11 +10596,11 @@ vshCmddefHelp(vshControl *ctl, const char *cmdname) case VSH_OT_INT: /* xgettext:c-format */ fmt = ((opt->flag & VSH_OFLAG_REQ) ? "<%s>" - : _("[--%s <number>]")); + : _("[%s]")); break; case VSH_OT_STRING: /* xgettext:c-format */ - fmt = _("[--%s <string>]"); + fmt = _("[%s]"); break;