[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [groff] 27/33: eqn(1): Fix content and style nits.
|
From: |
Mike Bianchi |
|
Subject: |
Re: [groff] 27/33: eqn(1): Fix content and style nits. |
|
Date: |
Mon, 24 Oct 2022 12:05:07 -0400 |
|
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) |
> It may be, but I don't think that outweighs users knowing to search for
> ‘bugs’ when they want to see if the man page has that section on
> encountering odd behaviour.
Historically, BUGS were there to acknowledge actual failures that had not yet
been addressed. Witneess:
http://man.cat-v.org/unix-6th/1/diff
I agree that a LIMITATION is not a BUG, but sometimes a BUG is more severe than
an LIMITATION. If so, then it belongs in the man page.
Mike Bianchi
On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 10:18:37AM +0100, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> Hi Branden,
>
> > I've introduced or retained "Limitations" (sub)sections in several
> > groff man pages; often I find it a better fit for discussion of issues
> > than the historically well-attested "Bugs". Against Ingo's advice I
> > tend not to use that section title. We have a bug tracker for bugs;
> > as far as I know, Room 1127 in Murray Hill didn't. "Limitations"
> > seems like a better characterization of features
>
> It may be, but I don't think that outweighs users knowing to search for
> ‘bugs’ when they want to see if the man page has that section on
> encountering odd behaviour.
>
> --
> Cheers, Ralph.
--
Mike Bianchi