On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 17:17:54 +0100 Zefram <[email protected]> wrote: > Roger Shimizu wrote: > >I meant we may have: > > status: 8193 > > status flag: STA_PLL | STA_NANO > > That might be OK for the status flags, but I don't fancy duplicating > *every* line just to add the unit: > > offset: 5221897 > offset qty: 5221897 ns > maxerror: 616511 > maxerror qty: 616511 us > esterror: 9673 > esterror qty: 9673 us > > Applying that approach to every line doesn't seem sensible. But if > you're OK with adding the unit to the existing line, then there's a > similar approach available to keep the status on one line: > > status: 8193 (STA_PLL | STA_NANO) > > It's worth avoiding duplicating the lines, if reasonably possible, > because duplication gives the impression that two different pieces of > information are being presented.
OK. I'm convinced by your suggestion above. Seems it's better to break the old format of "-p" result, due to its brokenness. You can submit a patch, and I'll upload an experimental release. (since it's in deep freeze stage for stretch). So we can have a full test, if everything goes fine, we can release to unstable after stretch gets released. Thank you! Cheers, -- Roger Shimizu, GMT +9 Tokyo PGP/GPG: 4096R/6C6ACD6417B3ACB1
pgpKFh3r5vZr9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
