From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:39603) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j2j0G-0004iP-U1 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 17:00:05 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j2j0F-0003wx-W5 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 17:00:04 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:57097) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j2j0F-0003wj-Pl for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 17:00:03 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j2j0F-0007wm-OD for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 17:00:03 -0500 Subject: bug#39533: [PATCH] doc: Clarify documentation of guix environment --expose vs. Resent-To: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 23:00:03 +0100 From: Jakub =?UTF-8?Q?K=C4=85dzio=C5=82ka?= Message-ID: <20200214220003.azinipkwzd5hrtnf@gravity> References: <87k14v34hr.fsf@cassou.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="52rjheopj4bxjykl" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87k14v34hr.fsf@cassou.me> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Damien Cassou Cc: 39533-done@debbugs.gnu.org --52rjheopj4bxjykl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Feb 09, 2020 at 09:11:44PM +0100, Damien Cassou wrote: > The documentation for --expose and --share parameters are so similar > that the reader has to read both descriptions in parallel to find the > difference. >=20 > * doc/guix.texi (Invoking guix environment): Merge the two descriptions > into one, making it much easier to see the difference. Thanks for the patch! I agree that the options are so similar that they are best described together. I've edited the commit message slightly and pushed your patch as 459e0967705945bf6b5861598202aefef27451cd. --52rjheopj4bxjykl Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEE5Xa/ss9usT31cTO54xWnWEYTFWQFAl5HGGMACgkQ4xWnWEYT FWQkzA/9HGqmnBgL6khNUaMFbktyz4TqG/uXEg1E98RdmWFpqLRwONkIAjKv3dsE tBNpkqG8G3I6nEnfqGSaCnilr3yd2n/koCmyzC+WzjAEPHTQAnHxR/rDlYr9WICA t0zer9QrlQfJP3nfSulhMcpVtgt4YlYWbcDKCt1oAJEHXJSLD4j87d12bKf5Nlm3 Wb4JiI0+sM/pRN0e6TS1DxKgMANNAtW8IFV54J/KCzh2GFUMXYEzmwLf8h1q7tmv cQlCJP2kM+lht+rsxzplyJ/DUPRP5x/McgRKeRYIBbuDe+TqY/JtbQD64uU6pnjB SVQnJxYHLypBtAHzUT8ynfrlStW+XTJlSas4UjTR1HLMxWYXX9BP6uieglUSczRO aN2CTNPzy3VAnCMPvMwcYkWK+ZPum6BWA1ziQtVf3jXHjuG9SHB5MWdC8Bf6+iN3 xaqkwSzL3nTRcEr0ptlcMFga9q+h0kB0Iw6C1QNV8cSbJfNfQeeTMDQ52ATilPHF wyp76ELt1fI2VmKYm1Psb8KPK+G8R/Q9AnieEBsu7vRAKgWQXICpud4nIRswf7aV TT2JIPOwcJLXFIvEEQw2UwgFTGvOzTmh2hXMyqppmO84eH9UXWMmF74ChM9MD3kC kXf3+0cj5Zob0ECM5C9mRMv/P0UFQODG85MpTXUha8t3PiaDPZc= =wEcN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --52rjheopj4bxjykl--