Merge pull request iovisor#341 from iovisor/brendangregg-patch-1

documentation typos

CONTRIBUTING-SCRIPTS.md

@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ _(Written by Brendan Gregg.)_
 
 bcc has 2 types of scripts, in different directories:
 
-- **/examples**: intended as short examples of bcc & eBPF code. You should focus on keeping it short, neat, and documented (code comments). A submission can just the example code.
+- **/examples**: intended as short examples of bcc & eBPF code. You should focus on keeping it short, neat, and documented (code comments). A submission can just be the example code.
 - **/tools**: intended as production safe performance and troubleshooting tools. You should focus on it being useful, tested, low overhead, documented (incl. all caveats), and easy to use. A submission should involve 4 changes: the tool, a man page, an example file, and an addition to README.md. Follow [my lead](https://github.com/brendangregg/bcc/commit/9fa156273b395cfc5505f0fff5d6b7b1396f7daa), and see the checklist below. These will be run in mission critical environments as root, so if spending hours testing isn't for you, please submit your idea as an issue instead, or chat with us on irc.
 
 More detail for each below.
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ A checklist for bcc tool development:
 1. **Measure the overhead of the tool**. If you are running a microbenchmark, how much slower is it with the tool running. Is more CPU consumed? Try to determine the worst case: run the microbenchmark so that CPU headroom is exhausted, and then run the bcc tool. Can overhead be lowered?
 1. **Test again, and stress test**. You want to discover and fix all the bad things before others hit them.
 1. **Consider command line options**. Should it have -p for filtering on a PID? -T for timestamps? -i for interval? See other tools for examples, and copy the style: the usage message should list example usage at the end. Remember to keep the tool doing one thing and doing it well. Also, if there's one option that seems to be the common case, perhaps it should just be the first argument and not need a switch (no -X). A special case of this is *stat tools, like iostat/vmstat/etc, where the convention is [interval [count]].
-1. **Use pep8 to check Python style**: pep8 --show-source --ignore=E123,E125,E126,E127,E128,E302 filename . Note that it misses some things, like consistent usage, so you'll still need to check your double check your script.
+1. **Use pep8 to check Python style**: pep8 --show-source --ignore=E123,E125,E126,E127,E128,E302 filename . Note that it misses some things, like consistent usage, so you'll still need to double check your script.
 1. **Write an _example.txt file**. Copy the style in tools/biolatency_example.txt: start with an intro sentence, then have examples, and finish with the USAGE message. Explain everything: the first example should explain what we are seeing, even if this seems obvious. For some people it won't be obvious. Also explain why we are running the tool: what problems it's solving. It can take a long time (hours) to come up with good examples, but it's worth it. These will get copied around (eg, presentations, articles).
 1. **Read your example.txt file**. Does this sound too niche or convoluted? Are you spending too much time explaining caveats? These can be hints that perhaps you should fix your tool, or abandon it! Perhaps it better belongs as an /example, and not a tool. I've abandoned many tools at this stage.
 1. **Write a man page**. Either ROFF (.8), markdown (.md), or plain text (.txt): so long as it documents the important sections, particularly columns (fields) and caveats. These go under man/man8. See the other examples. Include a section on overhead, and pull no punches. It's better for end users to know about high overhead beforehand, than to discover it the hard way. Also explain caveats. Don't assume those will be obvious to tool users.