From owner-freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Fri Jul 27 00:26:59 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0794B105C6DB for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 00:26:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kaduk@mit.edu) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E1567D510 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 00:26:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kaduk@mit.edu) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 4F162105C6DA; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 00:26:58 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: doc@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B45A105C6D9 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 00:26:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kaduk@mit.edu) Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-5.mit.edu (dmz-mailsec-scanner-5.mit.edu [18.7.68.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 928017D50F for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 00:26:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kaduk@mit.edu) X-AuditID: 12074422-fafff700000017d1-42-5b5a659b5fb4 Received: from mailhub-auth-3.mit.edu ( [18.9.21.43]) (using TLS with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-5.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 61.CE.06097.B956A5B5; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 20:21:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH-1.MIT.EDU [18.9.28.11]) by mailhub-auth-3.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id w6R0Lj4o017178; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 20:21:46 -0400 Received: from kduck.kaduk.org (24-107-191-124.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com [24.107.191.124]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id w6R0LfwA011735 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 26 Jul 2018 20:21:44 -0400 Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 19:21:42 -0500 From: Benjamin Kaduk To: Rocky Hotas Cc: doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Review of a handbook patch Message-ID: <20180727002141.GC91950@kduck.kaduk.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrGIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixCmqrTsnNSra4OoCZoupH3eyWry495LR gcljxqf5LB5NJ88yBjBFcdmkpOZklqUW6dslcGV03Z/LWDBVoGLzrK1sDYxveboYOTgkBEwk rn536GLk4hASWMwkseloNwuEs5FRonfHB2YI5yqTxO3VjUxdjJwcLAKqEme/rGcGsdkE1CQe 721mBbFFgOL7Lp5hA7GZBYQlZvR8ZQGxhQXUJfYeuMoIYvMCbWt+uA6sRkggVmLRhIcsEHFB iZMzn7BA9GpJ3Pj3kgnkOmYBaYnl/zhAwpwCcRJPd+wFKxEVUJbY23eIfQKjwCwk3bOQdM9C 6F7AyLyKUTYlt0o3NzEzpzg1Wbc4OTEvL7VI11QvN7NELzWldBMjKEjZXZR2ME7853WIUYCD UYmHN+B1ZLQQa2JZcWXuIUZJDiYlUV5tw6hoIb6k/JTKjMTijPii0pzU4kOMEhzMSiK8a64D lfOmJFZWpRblw6SkOViUxHnv14RHCwmkJ5akZqemFqQWwWRlODiUJHjDUoCGChalpqdWpGXm lCCkmTg4QYbzAA0vAKnhLS5IzC3OTIfIn2LU5fjzfuokZiGWvPy8VClx3j3JQEUCIEUZpXlw c0DJRSJ7f80rRnGgt4R534CM4gEmJrhJr4CWMAEtOR4H8kFxSSJCSqqBUe/SNJ1Z5eKPX3at uT5z0Zm5BywLFy41Z9jKvn1O27oJBZ1PhAME3SyjG1Mmmzw/dzO0evehaSpbt/z6NSkkIvtZ xnmHpZ8apzYwvd1QUfGgafY+888qy+0UxYzD7zf3HNs8u69U4qnJlMlbw5epnmS5Or9WcFJ9 w1W9N5pLZjJ0leXHFVcvcFRiKc5INNRiLipOBAB2+d/xCQMAAA== X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27 Precedence: list List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 00:26:59 -0000 On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 08:43:17PM +0200, Rocky Hotas wrote: > Hi! > This is about the review: > > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D10600 > (patch to LDAP section of the FreeBSD Handbook) > > I wrote the text as a newbie, enthusiast user who tried to install an > OpenLDAP server, found some difficulties, and wanted to contribute. > > The style was naive and needed several corrections, that has been made > for about the first half, now waiting for a feedback. I don't know > anyone and lack some basic information. In order to avoid further > errors, I would like to ask, about the review process itself: > - Should the configuration presented in the text be tested by someone > other than me? That's not necessarily a requirement. If it works for you and looks reasonable, we don't need to hold up getting the documentation in (we can always change it later if there's a bug report). > - The role of the reviewer is only to notice the possible errors in the > style or markup, or can a dialogue/discussion take place? A discussion can definitely take place. Some reviewers (e.g., me) may be very busy and not effectively participate in such a dialogue, though, unfortunately. > - Till now, the linked text has been read by several developers, each of > them finding some flaw, but not knowing the "history" of the issues and > their evolution. Is this normal? How does the review process usually get > coordination? It is not uncommon to have different reviewers come in and be unaware of the whole history. Ideally a change would not be sitting around uncommitted as long as this one has, but sometimes it happens. It's sometimes easiest if there can be a single dedicated reviewer who follows the change over time, participates in a dialogue, etc., but I don't have any great tips for picking up such a reviewer. > If someone could give some hint, I would be very grateful. Hopefully this helps. Thank you for submitting the patch and updating it so much, and I'm sorry I can't help more right now. -Ben