> > the available quota. Such behavior might make users confused, so, I believe
> > it's
> > better to have the reasons for such behavior better documented.
> >
>
> Seems reasonable...
>
> > +option outputs verbose information, displaying quota values even when
> > there is
> > +no used space. Such behavior was chosen to be compliant with the 'quota'
> > command
> > +and for historical reasons. The
>
> ... though this sounds a bit unclear to me. Specifically, it sounds like
> it could be saying that the behavior of -v has some historical
> justification, when in fact, it is the absense of output in the
> non-verbose case that we're trying to document (assuming I understand
> the commit log correctly).
>
> As an example, something like the following sounds more clear to me:
>
> "The -v option outputs verbose information and includes quota limits
> with no consumption. By default, xfs_quota does not display limits with
> no consumption to maintain compatibility with the 'quota' command."
>
> ... but I suspect it could still be worded better.
>
Thank you for the comment Brian, I liked your idea, but, I'm also not the best
person to say if this is enough or not, I'll wait for some other comments here,
so I can send a V2 with our final decision.
Cheers
--
Carlos
|