Bug 251279 - [patch] Added wording to the handbook ports chapter about branches as they relate to using portsnap.
Summary: [patch] Added wording to the handbook ports chapter about branches as they re...
Status: Open
Alias: None
Product: Documentation
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Documentation (show other bugs)
Version: Latest
Hardware: Any Any
: --- Affects Some People
Assignee: Benjamin Kaduk
Depends on:
Reported: 2020-11-20 21:13 UTC by Fred
Modified: 2021-01-05 22:08 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:

svn diff of en_US.ISO8859-1/handbook/ports/chapter.xml (810 bytes, patch)
2020-11-20 21:13 UTC, Fred
no flags Details | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Fred 2020-11-20 21:13:20 UTC
Created attachment 219841 [details]
svn diff of en_US.ISO8859-1/handbook/ports/chapter.xml

I added some wording, to the ports chapter of the handbook, where it explains the use of portsnap(Procedure 4.1). The new wording explains which branch of the Ports Collection is used by portsnap. I wasn't able to easily find this information so I thought it should be included in the handbook. Please consider the diff and if you think the added explanation is appropriate and accurate please commit it.

This bug report is a follow-up to one I submitted recently which is 251195.
Comment 1 Fred 2020-12-07 20:25:05 UTC
Just wondering if somebody could take a look at this patch for the handbook in regard to portsnap. 

Comment 2 Mateusz Piotrowski freebsd_committer 2020-12-13 22:39:08 UTC
Thanks for the submission! We'll definitely take a look at it, but I personally just don't have time at the moment to properly review the patch.
Comment 3 Benjamin Kaduk freebsd_committer 2020-12-30 06:39:32 UTC
Thanks for putting this together.  It was going to need at least some minor editing (to capitalize "Portsnap" and put it in an <application> tag), and I ended up doing some fairly heavy rewording as well while I was there.  Please take a look at https://reviews.freebsd.org/D27843 and see if it covers what you think is needed.
Comment 4 Fred 2021-01-05 18:59:28 UTC

I'm not sure who you intended to review the edits/changes you made but they look OK to me. I think it can be committed to the docs repo as you have it.