Fix typographical errors in services section #198
No reviewers
Labels
No labels
in progress
in progress
meeting
need info
ongoing work project
on hold
pending activity
release test
user documentation
No milestone
No project
No assignees
3 participants
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference
server/user-documentation!198
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "brettweir/user-documentation:proofread-services"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
This pull request makes the following changes to the services section of the documentation:
I tried to take a light-touch approach here, but happy to update the PR if any changes are too aggressive.
40af27649cto99a268f092Looks good to merge.
@ -121,3 +121,3 @@[TIP]====In case of connection issues there is most probably a SELinux configuration missing, in most case a "__name_connect access on the tcp_socket__" issue. Check the SELinux module in Cockpit. It helps you in detail to establish a local policy to fix it. It is easy, just a matter of 2 instructions.In case of connection issues, there is probably a SELinux configuration missing, most likely a "__name_connect access on the tcp_socket__" issue. Check the SELinux module in Cockpit. It provides detailed guidance to fix it. It is easy—just a matter of two instructions.It is easy—just a matter of two instructions.
This smacks of AI speak... I would just change this to something like:
The SELinux module, in Cockpit, provides detailed guidance on how to fix this issues by running two simple instructions/commands.
This is a good catch, I will ungrossify this.
Oh, nevermind, I see now that I only added the em dash. The phrasing in question was part of the source document. While I think it should be addressed, it is out of scope for this pull request.
Tracking here server/tickets#209
There is a conflict around line 143. Could you have a look into it, please?