relnotes: clarify that snapshots were previously possible without SU+J

[emaste]

Summary

Based on misunderstanding in https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2023/04/13/freebsd_132_openbsd_73/, make it clear that snapshots w/o SU+J was possible before and that snapshots with SU+J is the new functionality

[emaste]

I'd be happy if someone can come up with a more concise way to make this clear.

[• karels]

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

330

Possibly s/that did not enable/without/?

For what it's worth, this seemed clear enough to me before, but it can't hurt to be explicit.

[emaste]

update based on karels feedback

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

330

It seemed clear enough to me as well, although of course I had a lot of context.

[emaste]

Try to clarify even more

[emaste]

When I looked at how this rendered my edit seemed out of place -- the "Thus it is..." really belongs with the first sentence. So just make this a parenthetical comment at the end. Also I think "incompatible with" is more clear/less repetitive than "did not enable" or "filesystems without"

[• karels]

I agree, this is better.

[grahamperrin]

Similarly, in the announcement (the first link in Liam's article):

• It is now possible to take snapshots on UFS filesystems when running with journaled soft updates.

If you do lean towards an update of the announcement (personally, I don't), maybe put it in the context of draft https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-doc/pull/166. Thanks

[gjb]

In D39630#902994, @grahamperrin wrote:

If you do lean towards an update of the announcement [...]

The announcement text should only be updated if there is something glaringly wrong (i.e., wrong FreeBSD version number, or the like). Any other updates to it should go in the errata file instead.