Before: ABRT has detected '2' problem(s). (For more info run: $ abrt-cli list --since 1372083129 ) After: ABRT has detected 2 problem(s). For more info run: abrt-cli list --since 1372083129
Signed-off-by: Denys Vlasenko dvlasenk@redhat.com --- src/cli/status.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/cli/status.c b/src/cli/status.c index 08045b9..17a1865 100644 --- a/src/cli/status.c +++ b/src/cli/status.c @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ int cmd_status(int argc, const char **argv) else { char *list_arg = opt_since ? xasprintf(" --since %d", opt_since) : xstrdup(""); - printf(_("ABRT has detected '%u' problem(s). (For more info run: $ abrt-cli list%s )\n"), problem_count, list_arg); + printf(_("ABRT has detected %u problem(s). For more info run: abrt-cli list%s\n"), problem_count, list_arg); free(list_arg); } }
Is this patch related to some ticket? Or why do you think that the patch fixes the output?
Regards Jakub
On Mon, 2013-06-24 at 16:24 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
Before: ABRT has detected '2' problem(s). (For more info run: $ abrt-cli list --since 1372083129 ) After: ABRT has detected 2 problem(s). For more info run: abrt-cli list --since 1372083129
Signed-off-by: Denys Vlasenko dvlasenk@redhat.com
src/cli/status.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/cli/status.c b/src/cli/status.c index 08045b9..17a1865 100644 --- a/src/cli/status.c +++ b/src/cli/status.c @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ int cmd_status(int argc, const char **argv) else { char *list_arg = opt_since ? xasprintf(" --since %d", opt_since) : xstrdup("");
printf(_("ABRT has detected '%u' problem(s). (For more info run: $ abrt-cli list%s )\n"), problem_count, list_arg);
}printf(_("ABRT has detected %u problem(s). For more info run: abrt-cli list%s\n"), problem_count, list_arg); free(list_arg); }
On 06/24/2013 04:50 PM, Jakub Filak wrote:
Is this patch related to some ticket?
No, it's a result of me looking at the output and thinking "for me as a user, this message looks wrong".
Or why do you think that the patch fixes the output?
Because: - numbers are not enclosed in quotes in English language - assuming that user has '$' as shell prompt is unwarranted
On 06/24/2013 04:56 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On 06/24/2013 04:50 PM, Jakub Filak wrote:
Is this patch related to some ticket?
No, it's a result of me looking at the output and thinking "for me as a user, this message looks wrong".
Or why do you think that the patch fixes the output?
Because:
- numbers are not enclosed in quotes in English language
- assuming that user has '$' as shell prompt is unwarranted
+1
This patch makes it better.
On Mon, 2013-06-24 at 17:24 +0200, Richard Marko wrote:
On 06/24/2013 04:56 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On 06/24/2013 04:50 PM, Jakub Filak wrote:
Is this patch related to some ticket?
No, it's a result of me looking at the output and thinking "for me as a user, this message looks wrong".
Or why do you think that the patch fixes the output?
Because:
- numbers are not enclosed in quotes in English language
- assuming that user has '$' as shell prompt is unwarranted
+1
This patch makes it better.
Sure, it looks much better.
I was just unhappy with the commit message because I don't know when we have to reference a ticket in the commit message. I would say that if a patch needs review then the patch also needs an reference to some ticket. We should update the developer guide. Or am I completely wrong?
On 06/26/2013 09:07 AM, Jakub Filak wrote:
On Mon, 2013-06-24 at 17:24 +0200, Richard Marko wrote:
On 06/24/2013 04:56 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On 06/24/2013 04:50 PM, Jakub Filak wrote:
Is this patch related to some ticket?
No, it's a result of me looking at the output and thinking "for me as a user, this message looks wrong".
Or why do you think that the patch fixes the output?
Because:
- numbers are not enclosed in quotes in English language
- assuming that user has '$' as shell prompt is unwarranted
+1
This patch makes it better.
Sure, it looks much better.
I was just unhappy with the commit message because I don't know when we have to reference a ticket in the commit message. I would say that if a patch needs review then the patch also needs an reference to some ticket. We should update the developer guide. Or am I completely wrong?
Let's keep it simple: - review: always - ticket: if it's not trivial (in cases where it's not clear, it's up to reviewer to decide)
--Jirka
Pushed. Thanks!
On Mon, 2013-06-24 at 16:24 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
Before: ABRT has detected '2' problem(s). (For more info run: $ abrt-cli list --since 1372083129 ) After: ABRT has detected 2 problem(s). For more info run: abrt-cli list --since 1372083129
Signed-off-by: Denys Vlasenko dvlasenk@redhat.com
src/cli/status.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/cli/status.c b/src/cli/status.c index 08045b9..17a1865 100644 --- a/src/cli/status.c +++ b/src/cli/status.c @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ int cmd_status(int argc, const char **argv) else { char *list_arg = opt_since ? xasprintf(" --since %d", opt_since) : xstrdup("");
printf(_("ABRT has detected '%u' problem(s). (For more info run: $ abrt-cli list%s )\n"), problem_count, list_arg);
}printf(_("ABRT has detected %u problem(s). For more info run: abrt-cli list%s\n"), problem_count, list_arg); free(list_arg); }
crash-catcher@lists.fedorahosted.org