Spurious space.

I'd make that a link to the "working copy" chapter.

Somewhere in this paragraph, I'd mention that if you specify docs as a group reviewer, members of docs on Phabricator (which should be most Doc Team members if not all) get an email notice of the review.

What is your rationale for this change?

Is it worth linking to https://sethrobertson.github.io/GitFixUm/fixup.html here or in the resources section?

IIRC, after using "git add", you need to use "git diff --staged". Plain "git diff" will return an empty diff, confusing everyone involved. Or move the "git add" to just before "git commit" in the workflow that needs a commit.

Since you're touching this line: this is no longer needed. Instead, the patch contributor should check the "attachment is patch" box in the web interface when uploading the patch.

This looks out of place here. Shouldn't it be after the last line of this change, starting with

The differential is immediately available for inspection

?

Not necessarily the reviewer - it can be the submitter themselves.

The link to https://git-scm.com takes the reader off the FreeBSD ecosystem to the git homepage which does not give the reader access to much useful information. The link to the git man page provides immediate useful information that is FreeBSD specific.

The link package:devel/git[] takes the reader to the useless index page for the git port which has no information about how to install the port or package.

I've opted for the revised text which keeps the reader focused on the doc tool set.

Both places.

This is existing content. I was trying to apply just the minimum changes.

I've added "git diff --staged" text as you suggested.