Apologies for taking so long, life got in the way.

mdoc(7) looks good

I spotted a few nits, but they're not worth holding up the review for as they can be fixed before the commit is pushed.

Other than the question, I'm still happy with the mdoc, so will accept once that's been answered.

mdoc(7) looks good to me.

I cant immediately spot any other nits with the mdoc, but perhaps you should add a note about when ts(1) was added to FreeBSD in the history section header?

I don't think there's anything else I remarked on that needs to be addressed, so if everyone else would accept it if theirs has been dealt with, we can get the needful done.

As for the change, it looks good to me - but as I'm sure you know, you need extra approval too. ;)

I've made some suggestions for where various entries belong, but that's about it I think.

mdoc(7) syntax looks good to me, so once the other issues pointed out with the manual page have been fixed, I'm happy to accept it.

I'm happy with mdoc(7) syntax since .Dd was bumped ;)

Looks good to go, go ahead and commit @imp

mdoc looks good to me.

.Dd also needs to be bumped.

mdoc(7) looks good to me, but please remember to bump .Dd before you commit. :)

I think it's ready to go now, and the summary should work better as a descriptive commit message. :)

You're absolutely right, -P means parsable, whereas -p means properties.
You should probably explain that in the commit log, though - may I edit the summary?

Looks good to me, so assuming it builds, you're good to go. :)

For one-sentence-per-line changes, we generally like to keep them as separate commits.
However, I think it's okay for this commit since you're changing so little.

Ss, like Sh, should be capitalized according to mdoc(7).

Looks good to me.

I'd prefer if you used .Sy or .Em rather than capitalization.

I apologize deeply for losing track of this one (and the change to rc.subr(8), although I think I managed to address that one).

I ended up documenting this in bd6dce978c1, I believe - can you confirm?

Manual page syntax looks good, but it'd be nice to have a mention of the timing in the HISTORY section.

Have you run the manual page through mandoc -Tlint and igor from textproc/igor?

Manual page looks good to me, but please remember to bump .Dd before pushing. ;)

Manual page looks good to me from a syntax perspective, and I wasn't able to spot any other issues.

Please run mandoc -Tlint and igor on the manual page, you'll see that there's a few minor nits that need to be fixed.

Syntax looks good, and it matches what I remember of my CCIE Wireless courses.

Looks good to me.

Commandeering this now that @rpokala has approved it on IRC.

mdoc syntax hasn't really changed and .Dd has been bumped, so this can be commited and pushed.

There are also some lines that exceed 80 characters in width, so the manual page needs to be rewrapped.

Good to go.

I only spotted one minor nit, so I'll accept this and you can commit and push at your convenience after you've fixed it.

Looks good to me.

Looks good to me.

A nice little addition to have. :)

Manual page looks good, I'll let others review the code.

Looks good to me.

I only noticed one thing in the mdoc syntax.

My initial pass of it looks good, but consider waiting for someone else to look over it too.

The mdoc syntax looks good to me.

A tiny nit with the mdoc syntax, otherwise it looks good to me.

I think you should add the "nearly" qualifier to identical, as saying they're identical and then mentioning an exception seems contradictory to me.

Manual page changes look good to me.

Please remember to bump .Dd on pf.conf.5 - other than that, manual page looks fine.

Manual page looks good to me.

I spotted one thing in the manual page, otherwise it looks good to me.

Yeah, let's hold off on celebrating the 30th anniversary until it actually happens, shall we? :)

I'll get this committed and pushed too, since it's such a trivial little fix.

Accepting as docs to avoid the confusion over misclick.

In D33073#779221, @fel1x.mintchoco.development_gmail.com wrote:

After you commit this, can you close these related bugzillas? 1 2

I think my suggestion is generic enough to give an indication of the amount of code used, without making it appear like a big portion of the code is taken from FreeBSD (which is a pretty common myth).

I'll accept as docs and wait for releng, then I'll commit once it's been accepted by them.

To add to what I said before, they've gotten pretty good at publishing what they include, if you can make head or tails of their snapshot release style.

I'm not sure I like this change, because without mentioning Mac OS X/macOS (the latter of which should probably be used), there's a lot more information to cover about the links between macOS and the Apple OSS distribution collection which includes XNU (where parts of the code enumerated here come from FreeBSD, because they originally came from BSD out of CSRG), along with the userland and the toolchain, libraries - and it's really not the FreeBSDs responsibility to keep track of all of that.

In D33073#778803, @fel1x.mintchoco.development_gmail.com wrote:

My name is 'Minsoo Choo', and email is 'fel1x.mintchoco.development@gmail.com'.
And I have a question. Can I change my email in my previous commits if I change my email address for development?(I'm considering to use ProtonMail)

While waiting for @releng to approve this, I'd like to know what you'd like to have listed as the author?
Usually it's in the form of git commit --author "Givenname Familyname <user AT example.org>".

Manual page change looks good to me.

What about changes to src/share/man/man5/ctf.5?

Looks good to me :)

I think this is ready to land now? So far as I can see everything's been addressed and a one-over didn't make anything else stand out.

Please run igor and mandoc -Tlint on the manual page - because among other things that they check for, I see that .Dd isn't bumped.

Looks good to me, though the summary (and thereby, the commit) should be "there's times". :)

Other than the nit and the question of when it should be pushed, this change looks good to me.

I think this is ready to go now?

OK from manpages then. :)

Have you run mandoc -Tlint and igor on the manual page?

mandoc -Tlint shows a few nits that I'd like to see corrected before this is committed.

mdoc changes look good to me

I made some comments here - but it looks to me like both my comments have or will be addressed shortly?

Manual page changes look good to me, can't comment on the code.

In D34099#771267, @pauamma_gundo.com wrote:

ObMeta; I can't make edit suggestions on this review as the button is missing from inline comments for some reason.