Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 21:49:44 -0400 From: Fbsd8 <fbsd8@a1poweruser.com> To: remko@FreeBSD.org Cc: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: docs/179443: Rewrite of the Handbook Chapter 16 Jails. Message-ID: <51BD19B8.3030406@a1poweruser.com> In-Reply-To: <201306151951.r5FJpHun009955@freefall.freebsd.org> References: <201306151951.r5FJpHun009955@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
remko@FreeBSD.org wrote: > Synopsis: Rewrite of the Handbook Chapter 16 Jails. > > State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback > State-Changed-By: remko > State-Changed-When: Sat Jun 15 19:48:54 UTC 2013 > State-Changed-Why: > Dear Joe, > > Please submit an unified diff so that I can review what you have written and what > the changes are. I will not be looking at the raw HTML you provided. In addition > it seems that from a peek only you are the contributor, but we both know that that is > not the case. > > I still have the qjail vs ezjail discussion in mind, so I think you should provide > a very heldback diff and not change the contributors at all (which you seem to be > doing again). > > > > Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-doc->remko > Responsible-Changed-By: remko > Responsible-Changed-When: Sat Jun 15 19:48:54 UTC 2013 > Responsible-Changed-Why: > Take the PR so that I can either close it or work on it IF joe convinces > me that it's worth the trouble. > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=179443 > > Hello Remko: You are way off base here. Your judgment is clouded by things that have no bearing on this PR. The handbook jail chapter rewrite has nothing to do with ezjail or qjail ports. If you would have taken the time to study the html doc you would have seen that for your self. Just because qjail was created by Filipinos who are not knowledgeable in open source protocol is no reason to insinuate things were done on purpose with intent. We now know we erred in judgment and have resolved the problem. So lets put this behind us and move on with this PR. The word "rewite" in the PR subject means this html content is intended to replace the existing content of the current handbook chapter 16. The PR "subject" sure seem very clear in that meaning. If the Doc group members feels that they want to keep the current outdated handbook chapter 16 content, and add what I wrote as another sub-section, thats for the Doc team members to discuss and decide as a group. From the tone of what you wrote I don't feel you can be fair and professional in your judgment concerning this PR. If you can convince me that you can put the past behind you and change your attitude them you can work this PR, otherwise just return it to open status for some other Doc member to select to take it on.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51BD19B8.3030406>