[RFC] Concise vs comprehensive help - do we need both?

[Ian Clatworthy]

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Ian Clatworthy writes:

>  > I'd be just as happy not adding -? and making -h be concise help while
>  > "bzr help xxx" gave the full story. Would that be better?
> 
> It might be.  However, I lean toward "bzr help" as the OOWDTI.  "bzr
> help -v" would give the more comprehensive version.

OOWDTI?

> I'm not particularly firm on this, though.  I think John's idea of
> breaking out log formats as a separate topic is far more important.

Sure - I'll do that regardless. I agree that log-formats is a
sensible help topic as they apply to multiple commands.

> Oops.  Yeah, it works most of the time, but it really is ambiguous.
> (And I do occasionally end up with file names that match the glob "-?"
> because of some command line typo where what I intended as an option
> got interpreted as a file name.  Highly unlikely, but ....)

Occasional matching like this is bad, probably more so than if it
happened regularly. We certainly don't need -? if -h defaults to
concise help.

Ian C.