• 
      

    Add documentation for the rbt commands

    Review Request #3931 — Created March 5, 2013 and submitted

    Information

    RBTools
    master

    Reviewers

    Add documentation for the rbt commands
    
    A page for each command has been added listing a short description and
    the options which the command accepts. Eventually these should be
    expanded to provide more in depth documentation.
    
    Also, the post-review documentation has been ported from the Review
    Board code base. This also served as the starting point for the rbt
    post command's documentation.
    
    Additionally, a couple of unused options, which were noticed while
    documenting, were removed from the post command.
    
    This is dependent upon /r/3296
    Built the documentation using 'make html' and visually inspected.
    Description From Last Updated

    nit - even -> ever

    mike_conley mike_conley

    I think "setuptools" should be lower-cased.

    david david

    We should say "2.4 or higher," explicitly, in case some crazy person is using something even older.

    chipx86 chipx86

    Up until here, you've been capitalizing the "s" in Setuptools. I guess do that here too.

    mike_conley mike_conley

    a browser -> the default web browser

    mike_conley mike_conley

    "If you instead" is a little awkward - maybe "If you want to update an existing review request with new …

    mike_conley mike_conley

    to generate -> to also generate

    mike_conley mike_conley

    made between ``topicB`` and ``topicA``

    mike_conley mike_conley

    uuid -> UUID

    mike_conley mike_conley

    Not sure if this last paragraph is needed. And if so, it should link to where we mentioned updating review …

    mike_conley mike_conley

    You mention dotfiles earlier - I wonder if this should be the first solution you present instead.

    mike_conley mike_conley

    Not sure this is the clearest title. Maybe something like: Options for Setting Fields

    mike_conley mike_conley

    You've used "username" elsewhere. We'd better be consistent, so maybe go with "username".

    mike_conley mike_conley

    Maybe (again) mention, "if not supplied, defaults to 'submitted'"

    mike_conley mike_conley

    accompanied with change -> accompanying the change.

    mike_conley mike_conley

    username

    mike_conley mike_conley

    Typo: ouput I think it would be clearer if it said "print the diff to standard out" instead of "output …

    david david

    typo: ouput -> output

    mike_conley mike_conley

    git -> Git

    mike_conley mike_conley

    git -> Git x2

    mike_conley mike_conley

    username

    mike_conley mike_conley

    username

    mike_conley mike_conley

    I think before this section, you should have a very simple section for Git/hg that just talks about using post …

    david david

    to generate -> to also generate

    mike_conley mike_conley

    made between ``topicB`` and ``topicA``

    mike_conley mike_conley

    UUID

    mike_conley mike_conley

    Not sure if this last paragraph is needed. And if so, it should link to where we mentioned updating review …

    mike_conley mike_conley

    You mention dotfiles earlier - I wonder if this should be the first solution you present instead.

    mike_conley mike_conley

    git -> Git

    mike_conley mike_conley

    username

    mike_conley mike_conley

    username

    mike_conley mike_conley

    I'd like us to standardize on using review-request-id in all these cases. This applies to each occurrence.

    chipx86 chipx86
    reviewbot
    1. This is a review from Review Bot.
        Tool: PEP8 Style Checker
        Processed Files:
        Ignored Files:
          docs/rbt/commands/attach.txt
          docs/api/overview.txt
          docs/index.txt
          docs/rbt/commands/close.txt
          docs/rbt/commands/post.txt
          docs/rbt/commands/patch.txt
          docs/api/index.txt
          docs/rbt/commands/index.txt
          docs/rbt/commands/publish.txt
          docs/rbt/index.txt
          docs/post-review.txt
          docs/contents.txt
          docs/glossary.txt
          docs/rbt/commands/status.txt
          docs/rbt/commands/diff.txt
      
      
    2. 
        
    david
    1. 
        
    2. docs/glossary.txt (Diff revision 1)
       
       
       
      Instead of "goes into" I would say "gets checked in to"
    3. docs/index.txt (Diff revision 1)
       
       
      Show all issues
      I think "setuptools" should be lower-cased.
    4. docs/rbt/commands/diff.txt (Diff revision 1)
       
       
      Show all issues
      Typo: ouput
      
      I think it would be clearer if it said "print the diff to standard out" instead of "output the diff"
    5. docs/rbt/commands/post.txt (Diff revision 1)
       
       
       
       
       
       
      Show all issues
      I think before this section, you should have a very simple section for Git/hg that just talks about using post with -g and -r to post/update code against a master branch.
    6. 
        
    mike_conley
    1. Looks really good, Steven! Reads very well. Consider this a conditional ship-it - so if the below is addressed, I'm happy. :)
      
      Thanks,
      
      -Mike
    2. docs/glossary.txt (Diff revision 1)
       
       
      Show all issues
      nit - even -> ever
    3. docs/index.txt (Diff revision 1)
       
       
      Show all issues
      Up until here, you've been capitalizing the "s" in Setuptools. I guess do that here too.
      1. As David suggested, "setuptools" is usually not capitalized, so I'm switching all references to lower case.
    4. docs/post-review.txt (Diff revision 1)
       
       
      Show all issues
      a browser -> the default web browser
    5. docs/post-review.txt (Diff revision 1)
       
       
       
      Show all issues
      "If you instead" is a little awkward - maybe "If you want to update an existing review request with new changes instead,"
    6. docs/post-review.txt (Diff revision 1)
       
       
      Show all issues
      to generate -> to also generate
    7. docs/post-review.txt (Diff revision 1)
       
       
      Show all issues
      made between ``topicB`` and ``topicA``
    8. docs/post-review.txt (Diff revision 1)
       
       
      Show all issues
      uuid -> UUID
    9. docs/post-review.txt (Diff revision 1)
       
       
       
      Show all issues
      Not sure if this last paragraph is needed. And if so, it should link to where we mentioned updating review requests.
    10. docs/post-review.txt (Diff revision 1)
       
       
      I'm glad I don't use old versions of Perforce. :)
    11. docs/post-review.txt (Diff revision 1)
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
      Show all issues
      You mention dotfiles earlier - I wonder if this should be the first solution you present instead.
    12. docs/post-review.txt (Diff revision 1)
       
       
       
      Show all issues
      Not sure this is the clearest title.
      
      Maybe something like:
      
      Options for Setting Fields
    13. docs/rbt/commands/attach.txt (Diff revision 1)
       
       
      Show all issues
      You've used "username" elsewhere. We'd better be consistent, so maybe go with "username".
    14. docs/rbt/commands/close.txt (Diff revision 1)
       
       
      Show all issues
      Maybe (again) mention, "if not supplied, defaults to 'submitted'"
    15. docs/rbt/commands/close.txt (Diff revision 1)
       
       
      Show all issues
      accompanied with change -> accompanying the change.
    16. docs/rbt/commands/close.txt (Diff revision 1)
       
       
      Show all issues
      username
    17. docs/rbt/commands/diff.txt (Diff revision 1)
       
       
      Show all issues
      typo: ouput -> output
    18. docs/rbt/commands/diff.txt (Diff revision 1)
       
       
      Show all issues
      git -> Git
    19. docs/rbt/commands/diff.txt (Diff revision 1)
       
       
       
      Show all issues
      git -> Git x2
    20. docs/rbt/commands/diff.txt (Diff revision 1)
       
       
      Show all issues
      username
    21. docs/rbt/commands/patch.txt (Diff revision 1)
       
       
      Show all issues
      username
    22. docs/rbt/commands/post.txt (Diff revision 1)
       
       
      Show all issues
      to generate -> to also generate
    23. docs/rbt/commands/post.txt (Diff revision 1)
       
       
      Show all issues
      made between ``topicB`` and ``topicA``
    24. docs/rbt/commands/post.txt (Diff revision 1)
       
       
      Show all issues
      UUID
    25. docs/rbt/commands/post.txt (Diff revision 1)
       
       
       
      Show all issues
      Not sure if this last paragraph is needed. And if so, it should link to where we mentioned updating review requests.
    26. docs/rbt/commands/post.txt (Diff revision 1)
       
       
      Show all issues
      You mention dotfiles earlier - I wonder if this should be the first solution you present instead.
    27. docs/rbt/commands/post.txt (Diff revision 1)
       
       
      Show all issues
      git -> Git
    28. docs/rbt/commands/publish.txt (Diff revision 1)
       
       
      Show all issues
      username
    29. docs/rbt/commands/status.txt (Diff revision 1)
       
       
      Show all issues
      username
    30. 
        
    SM
    reviewbot
    1. This is a review from Review Bot.
        Tool: PEP8 Style Checker
        Processed Files:
          rbtools/commands/post.py
        Ignored Files:
          docs/rbt/commands/attach.txt
          docs/post-review.txt
          docs/index.txt
          docs/rbt/commands/close.txt
          docs/rbt/commands/post.txt
          docs/rbt/commands/patch.txt
          docs/api/index.txt
          docs/rbt/commands/index.txt
          docs/rbt/commands/publish.txt
          docs/rbt/index.txt
          docs/api/overview.txt
          docs/contents.txt
          docs/rbt/configuration.txt
          docs/glossary.txt
          docs/rbt/commands/status.txt
          docs/rbt/commands/diff.txt
      
      
    2. 
        
    chipx86
    1. 
        
    2. docs/index.txt (Diff revision 1)
       
       
      Show all issues
      We should say "2.4 or higher," explicitly, in case some crazy person is using something even older.
    3. 
        
    chipx86
    1. 
        
    2. docs/rbt/commands/attach.txt (Diff revision 2)
       
       
      Show all issues
      I'd like us to standardize on using review-request-id in all these cases. This applies to each occurrence.
    3. 
        
    SM
    reviewbot
    1. This is a review from Review Bot.
        Tool: PEP8 Style Checker
        Processed Files:
          rbtools/commands/patch.py
          rbtools/commands/post.py
          rbtools/commands/attach.py
          rbtools/commands/publish.py
          rbtools/commands/close.py
        Ignored Files:
          docs/rbt/commands/attach.txt
          docs/post-review.txt
          docs/index.txt
          docs/rbt/commands/close.txt
          docs/rbt/commands/post.txt
          docs/rbt/commands/patch.txt
          docs/api/index.txt
          docs/rbt/commands/index.txt
          docs/rbt/commands/publish.txt
          docs/rbt/index.txt
          docs/api/overview.txt
          docs/contents.txt
          docs/rbt/configuration.txt
          docs/glossary.txt
          docs/rbt/commands/status.txt
          docs/rbt/commands/diff.txt
      
      
    2. 
        
    chipx86
    1. Ship It!
    2. 
        
    SM
    Review request changed
    Status:
    Completed
    Change Summary:
    Pushed to master (49166f91eac5f91bca7779337e1a7d405ef54878).