[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[bug#29438] [PATCH 2/2] services: configuration: Show default values of
[bug#29438] [PATCH 2/2] services: configuration: Show default values of list types.
Sun, 10 Dec 2017 14:26:39 +0100
mu4e 0.9.18; emacs 25.3.1
Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> writes:
> Clément Lassieur <address@hidden> skribis:
>> * doc/guix.texi (Messaging Services): Regenerate it.
>> * gnu/services/configuration.scm (show-default?): Fix recursion.
>> * gnu/services/messaging.scm (show-default?): Fix recursion.
> Rather “Check VAL rather than DEFAULT.”
>> (prosody-configuration)[modules-enabled]: Remove default value from
> LGTM, though I’m afraid we’ll have a hard time keep guix.texi in sync,
> at least until we have an automated mechanism to regenerate those bits.
Thank you for reviewing!
It's a bit sad that most services' docstrings are not in sync with the
.texi file, it would be great to have an automated mechanism to update
the documentation. I use a hackish Emacs snippet to maintain Prosody
documentation, but something like "make generate-documentation
<service>" would be much better. I'll think about it.
@c The following documentation was initially generated by
@c (generate-documentation) in (gnu services messaging). Manually maintained
@c documentation is better, so we shouldn't hesitate to edit below as
@c needed. However if the change you want to make to this documentation
@c can be done in an automated way, it's probably easier to change
@c (generate-documentation) than to make it below and have to deal with
@c the churn as Prosody updates.
I don't really agree with this comment that can be found in several
places in our documentation. I believe that when there is a
(generate-documentation) procedure, manual edits shouldn't be
encouraged. But it's probably not worth updating it while there is no
easy way to automatically generate the documentation.
> Also, I was thinking that ‘guix system search’ could display
> field/default-value pairs. I’m not 100% sure it’s a good idea because
> that could be very verbose.
It would be verbose indeed, and if people want to have details about
fields and default values, they can search the manual.
- [bug#29438] [PATCH 2/2] services: configuration: Show default values of list types.,
Clément Lassieur <=