Re: Request for review of adjtimex(2) man page

2016-03-04 Thread Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
Hello John, Following up, long after the fact First of all, a belated thanks for your comments. On 01/09/2015 11:51 PM, John Stultz wrote: > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:53 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) > wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> Recently, I made made a number of changes to the adjtimex(2)

Re: Request for review of adjtimex(2) man page

2015-01-09 Thread John Stultz
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:53 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > Hello all, > > Recently, I made made a number of changes to the adjtimex(2) > man page, to try and add a bit more detail, since the page > was formerly in a very sorry state. Yes. My apologies for some of that. Its been on my to

Re: Request for review of adjtimex(2) man page

2015-01-09 Thread Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
Hi Laurent, On 7 January 2015 at 14:37, Laurent Georget wrote: > Hello, > > >>I've added a large number >> of FIXMEs in the draft below, and would be happy if anyone can supply >> some content to fill any of the gaps. > > Isn't the man page going to be very long and hard to read if we explain all

Re: Request for review of adjtimex(2) man page

2015-01-07 Thread Laurent Georget
Hello, >I've added a large number > of FIXMEs in the draft below, and would be happy if anyone can supply > some content to fill any of the gaps. Isn't the man page going to be very long and hard to read if we explain all the NTP internals in adjtimex.2? I think we could create a second man pag

Request for review of adjtimex(2) man page

2015-01-07 Thread Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
Hello all, Recently, I made made a number of changes to the adjtimex(2) man page, to try and add a bit more detail, since the page was formerly in a very sorry state. I would be happy if some NTP/time-knowledgeable folk (John, Richard, I'm kind of hoping you) would review the page to see if I've