Re: git: b3dfd5d59c4a - main - rmdir.1: Document non-POSIX -v option

Alexander Ziaee <ziaee@FreeBSD.org> writes:
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@FreeBSD.org> writes:
> > Alexander Ziaee <ziaee@FreeBSD.org> writes:
> > > +.Pp
> > > +The
> > > +.Fl v
> > > +option is an extension to that specification.
> > This is not the wording we normally use for these cases.
> We use in in rm(1), but we do not have a style guide and I am not
> aware of a consistent pattern. What would you prefer?

Right, so I thought we'd standardized on

    The
    .Fl v
    option is a non-standard extension.

but it's actually more varied than that, some pages say “a FreeBSD
extension” or “a BSD extension” or even “a GNU extension” in cases where
we copied GNU's homework, and some just say “an extension”.  We should
clean that up.

There is precedent for “an extension to that specification” but only in
pages where the previous sentence uses the word “specification”.  I
would prefer not standardizing on a wording that relies on external
context.

Furthermore, rmdir(1) does not follow the standard pattern, so maybe we
should start by fixing that:

    The
    .Nm
    utility is expected to conform to the
    .St -p1003.1-2008
    specification.

That's not the latest version of the standard, but we've made no effort
to update our codebase for 1003.1-2024, so it's the most recent one we
can plausibly claim conformance to (although in this particular case the
standard hasn't changed so we can probably go ahead with 1003.1-2024).

Finally, the SEE ALSO section should reference rmdir(2).

DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - des@FreeBSD.org