Add a SEE ALSO section to the manpages.
Master:
This PR:
Should be enough to close #29558.
<!--e57a25ab6845829454e8d69fc972939a-->
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.
<!--006a51241073e994b41acfe9ec718e94-->
For detailed information about the code coverage, see the test coverage report.
<!--021abf342d371248e50ceaed478a90ca-->
See the guideline for information on the review process.
| Type | Reviewers |
|---|---|
| ACK | jarolrod, willcl-ark, pablomartin4btc, laanwj |
If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update.
tACK 7c3ac598dd9a1f1a506c4931249ff6c9f1c949ba
master <img width="654" alt="Screenshot 2024-03-08 at 11 48 53 PM" src="https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/assets/23396902/18dc622e-6c91-4c79-8104-a45df19a3c6c">
pr <img width="671" alt="Screenshot 2024-03-08 at 11 42 11 PM" src="https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/assets/23396902/b8c5de19-fb19-49c2-92ab-f4754030a8f4">
The manpage you're viewing shouldn't be listed in See Also...
ACK 7c3ac598dd9a1f1a506c4931249ff6c9f1c949ba
I don't see it as a big issue to list all related binaries in the bitcoin "ecosystem" in the SEE ALSO section myself.
utACK 7c3ac598dd9a1f1a506c4931249ff6c9f1c949ba
61 | @@ -62,6 +62,10 @@ 62 | # Copyright is the same for all binaries, so just use the first. 63 | footer.write('[COPYRIGHT]\n') 64 | footer.write('\n'.join(versions[0][2]).strip()) 65 | + # Create SEE ALSO section 66 | + footer.write('\n[SEE ALSO]\n') 67 | + footer.write(', '.join(s.rpartition('/')[2] + '(1)' for s in BINARIES))
Could use os.path.basename it's slightly more readable and will always pick the last path item.
Edit: wait, so does rpartition, confused it for normal split. It's fine like this.
Good idea, concept ACK.
Code review ACK 7c3ac598dd9a1f1a506c4931249ff6c9f1c949ba