[LNT][docs] Fixed docs consistency

[nkbolg]

Summary

Fixed formatting for run-test command in getting started.
Removed shell sign where no command output provided.

[thopre]

docs/quickstart.rst

65

Difficult to see in Phabricator but that still doesn't look like the same spacing as say the git clone above. It's also the only command with a prompt so perhaps you could remove the prompt and use the same indentation as the git clone and other commands below?

[nkbolg]

• [LNT][docs] docs consistency fix

[thopre]

In D82543#2114913, @nkbolg wrote:

• [LNT][docs] docs consistency fix

I didn't realize there was other cases of prompt in other documentation files. Seeing some of those cases mix command invocation and its output and seeing how there are many cases of prompt already, it might be preferable to do it the other way around: use a prompt everywhere. If there are also lots of cases to convert to use a prompt, please do post a command before doing all the work.

[nkbolg]

This comment was removed by nkbolg.

docs/quickstart.rst

65

Done.
Also removed prompts from other command examples for consistency.

[nkbolg]

Yes, there are more than 20 cases of using command without a prompt sign. It's much more than the ones that used. Do you suppose it's better to convert them all?

[thopre]

In D82543#2115084, @nkbolg wrote:

Yes, there are more than 20 cases of using command without a prompt sign. It's much more than the ones that used. Do you suppose it's better to convert them all?

I think when a command is also shown along its output using a prompt makes sense. From there we could either convert everything to use a prompt (more work) or only use a prompt when there is a command is shown along its output because there would be ambiguity (less work but a bit less consistent). I'm fine with both, perhaps let's make sure prompt is only used where the output of the command is also shown. How many examples would need to be fixed?

[nkbolg]

• [LNT][docs] docs restored shell sign for examples with output

[nkbolg]

In D82543#2116917, @thopre wrote:

In D82543#2115084, @nkbolg wrote:

Yes, there are more than 20 cases of using command without a prompt sign. It's much more than the ones that used. Do you suppose it's better to convert them all?

I think when a command is also shown along its output using a prompt makes sense. From there we could either convert everything to use a prompt (more work) or only use a prompt when there is a command is shown along its output because there would be ambiguity (less work but a bit less consistent). I'm fine with both, perhaps let's make sure prompt is only used where the output of the command is also shown. How many examples would need to be fixed?

I've found 7 such cases. Restored shell sign at the places where command output was provided.

[thopre]

LGTM once you've updated the description to mention you've removed shell sign only when there's no output.

[thopre]

Landed as 53229320df0e57a7b779a3dcded72fc9e6d44e01

docs/quickstart.rst

#. Checkout the LLVM test-suite, if you haven't already::
    You should always keep the test-suite directory itself clean (that is, never
    do a configure inside your test suite). Make sure not to check it out into
    the LLVM projects directory, as LLVM's configure/make build will then want to
    automatically configure it for you.
 
 #. Execute the ``lnt runtest test-suite`` test producer, point it at the test suite and
    the compiler you want to test::
 
     $ lnt runtest test-suite \
        --sandbox /tmp/BAR \
        --cc ~/llvm.obj.64/Release+Asserts/bin/clang \
        --cxx ~/llvm.obj.64/Release+Asserts/bin/clang++ \
        --test-suite ~/llvm-test-suite \
        --cmake-cache Release
 
    The ``SANDBOX`` value is a path to where the test suite build products and
    results will be stored (inside a timestamped directory, by default).