Open Stack

Le 2014-03-21 14:15, Anne Gentle a écrit :
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 3:52 AM, Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 03/20/2014 09:37 PM, Diane Fleming wrote:
>>> But I'm willing to go along with the consensus on this. And I 
>>> totally
>>> agree that we need to have one convention that we all use.
>>> 
>>> But here's why I like two screens:
>>> 
>>> 1. You can insert text between the user input and the computer 
>>> output,
>>> such an explanation of what the user might see in the output.
>> 
>> You still can do this, I see no problem with that.
> 
> In the Ops Guide, we standardized on one screen wrapping <userinput>
> and <computeroutput> but even so it was causing oddities with their
> transforms. 
> 
> I'd prefer <screen> around each. 

OK. So to sum up, we're (I'm?) not happy with our tools rendering when 
using multiple <screen>s, and we have rendering issues when using a 
single <screen> too, although this only concerns the ops guide. Did I 
understand correctly?

Rendering set aside, I think that one screen is more logical, because 
you don't type the command in one terminal, and get the output in 
another one. And prompts explicitly define what is to be typed.

To reuse an argument from the basic OS setup discussion that took place 
yesterday ([0]), we can probably assume that users know how to use the 
command line, and that they will understand what is to be typed and what 
is the output.

Let's try to move forward and make a decision about this, this 
shouldn't be that hard :)

Thanks,
Gauvain

[0]: 
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-docs/2014-March/004144.html