Re: [PATCH btbridge v2 1/3] Update usage message

[Cyril Bur <cyril.bur@au1.ibm.com>]

On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 11:33:23 +1030
Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 4:40 PM, OpenBMC Patches
> <openbmc-patches@stwcx.xyz> wrote:
> > From: Cyril Bur <cyril.bur@au1.ibm.com>
> >
> > ---
> >  btbridged.c | 3 ++-
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/btbridged.c b/btbridged.c
> > index 115ae63..ab4880c 100644
> > --- a/btbridged.c
> > +++ b/btbridged.c
> > @@ -584,7 +584,8 @@ out:
> >
> >  static void usage(const char *name)
> >  {
> > -       fprintf(stderr, "Usage %s\n", name);
> > +       fprintf(stderr, "Usage %s [ --debug | --verbose ]\n", name);
> > +       fprintf(stderr, "\t--debug\t Implies --verbose\n\t Dumps entire message contents to console\n");  
> 
> I don't know what this means. What's the difference between debug and verbose?
> 

The initial idea was that verbose doesn't actually do anything but print more
info. debug does actually do extra work. I agree though that from the
users perspective debug just prints more... and they won't care about the
distinction I'm making about added work or not.

> It might be more discoverable to support multiple levels of verbosity.
> -v for verbose, -vv for what you term "debug".

Good idea, I'll add to pull request

> 
> >         fprintf(stderr, "\t--verbose\t Be verbose\n\n");
> >  }
> >
> > --
> > 2.6.3
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > openbmc mailing list
> > openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org
> > https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/openbmc  
>