Re: Hammer documentation

[Sascha Wildner <saw@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thomas Nikolajsen wrote:
> I agree; other mount_FS(8) pages doesn't have general FS info either.
> We could have hammer(5) and also hammer(7) as Matt suggested;
> hammer(5) would then be a traditional man page with compact description of Hammer,
> and hammer(7) would contain more free running text with uses cases as described below.

I don't think hammer(7) is necessary. I chose 7 for the vkernel manpage 
because it's neither really 9 nor 1 and not because 7 is automatically 
the best choice for "these kinds" of manpages.

For file systems, 5 seems to be appropriate.

> Nice! Hammer(5) seems almost complete; it could be committed right away.
> A reference to chflags(1) for nohistory could be nice.
>
> I will look into hammer(7).
>
> I don't know if it is considered to have hammer manual page in multiple sections;
> will users find the? `man -a' really should be default (& `man -k' is your friend).

I'll commit hammer(5).

As said before, I don't think an additional hammer(7) is necessary. 
hammer(5) is good for explaining the features and everything else in a 
concise manner, and it can have an EXAMPLES section as well.

And yes, maybe we should make 'man -a' the default for the release.

Sascha

--
http://yoyodyne.ath.cx