13.2R: RC3 date, link to checksums, context

[grahamperrin]

Summary

Origin (three commits):

• https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-doc/compare/main...grahamperrin:freebsd-doc:patch-2.

[gbe]

LGTM

[grahamperrin]

In D39170#891607, @gbe wrote:

LGTM

Thanks.

This sequence of events confuses me:

gbe accepted this revision as: docs.

This revision was not accepted when it landed; it landed in state Needs Review.

When acceptance in Phabricator does not equal acceptance, what's the explanation?

[gbe]

In D39170#891617, @grahamperrin wrote:

In D39170#891607, @gbe wrote:

LGTM

Thanks.

This sequence of events confuses me:

gbe accepted this revision as: docs.

This revision was not accepted when it landed; it landed in state Needs Review.

When acceptance in Phabricator does not equal acceptance, what's the explanation?

I am not an expert in this field, but I would think, since I have accepted the differential only as a group reviewer,
cperciva should also have it accepted, or I should have accepted it as gbe and docs.

[grahamperrin]

In D39170#891618, @gbe wrote:

I am not an expert in this field, but I would think, since I have accepted the differential only as a group reviewer,
cperciva should also have it accepted, or I should have accepted it as gbe and docs.

Thanks again. I wonder.

https://wiki.freebsd.org/Phabricator#Create_a_Revision seems clear:

… Individuals and project groups may be Reviewers, and at least one reviewer must accept the revision for it to proceed. …

– no suggestion that an individual must accept.

[grahamperrin]

website/content/en/releases/13.2R/signatures.adoc

17 ↗

(On Diff #119095)

Better: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D39237 …