ANTS.registration requires reviews

[djarecka]

Summary

some of the inputs are not marked as mandatory
not all inputs have any descriptions

one interface was fixed in #2261

[mgxd]

related to #2245

[djarecka]

@mgxd #2245 is fixed in #2261

[oesteban]

What do you think about addressing this for 0.14.1 or 0.15.0 and push for releasing 0.14.0 ASAP?

[mgxd]

@oesteban yes - let's get your remaining PRs in and release 0.14.0

[djarecka]

@oesteban I'm ok with this. I was thinking that an ants user might be interested in reviewing the interfaces and improving the descriptions, but if noone interested I can try to compare with ants documentation

[oesteban]

@djarecka sure, this is completely justified and necessary maintenance 👍

[djarecka]

@oesteban , @satra - have started reading ANTS commands help and I'm wondering what is the general strategy for inputs description. Do you prefer to include entire description from help or write a short info (e.g. "metric image type") and assume that people will learn what is 'CC', 'MI', 'SMI', 'PR', 'SSD', 'MSQ' or 'PSE' from ANTS help or other documentation?