• [All Versions/Documentation] Discrepancy

    JokesOnYou77

    By JokesOnYou77

      • Minor

    Sorry if this isn't the right place for this but it seemed like the best option. 

     

    Issue

    The descriptions of Share access controls differs between different parts of the official documentation.  The descriptions of Private and Secure controls appear to be swapped between the Storage Management docs and the Security Best Practices guide. 

     

    Given the desire to make security best practices clear and easy to follow, this discrepancy could make it hard for new users to understand what they should do. 

     

    Suggested Fix

    1. Update docs to be correct
    2. Find a way to have a single source of truth for the future (maybe through templating?)

     

    I'm pretty new to the UnRAID community so I apologize if I've missed any posting norms. 

     

    -- Jokes 

    Go to reports Stable Releases

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    trurl

    Yes, the wiki is wrong. The blog is using a screenshot from the builtin help in the webUI and that is correct.

     

    Link to comment
    itimpi

    @JokesOnYou77   If you spot any such discrepancies then please continue to point them out so they can be corrected.

     

    it is worth pointing out that the help built into the GUI should always be considered the most authorative source as that will be created by whoever is involved in the implementation.

    Link to comment
    jonp

    Seconding what @itimpi has stated here, we will be updating docs to reflect best practices.  Thanks for bringing this to our attention and please, continue to make us aware of anything that is confusing, inaccurate, or out of date with the wiki.

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    JokesOnYou77

    Glad I could be helpful. 

     

    I'll definitely continue to keep an eye out for documentation issues as I progress on my build. 

     

    Link to comment
    John_M

    Is there an official place to report errata in the Online Manual, @jonp? I've spotted one in this section (not counting the trivial one in the title). The xfs_repair command needs to be all lower case, as I've written it, not XFS_repair, as it is shown.

    Link to comment


    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

    ×

  • Status Definitions

     

    Open = Under consideration.

     

    Solved = The issue has been resolved.

     

    Solved version = The issue has been resolved in the indicated release version.

     

    Closed = Feedback or opinion better posted on our forum for discussion. Also for reports we cannot reproduce or need more information. In this case just add a comment and we will review it again.

     

    Retest = Please retest in latest release.

    Priority Definitions

     

    Minor = Something not working correctly.

     

    Urgent = Server crash, data loss, or other showstopper.

     

    Annoyance = Doesn't affect functionality but should be fixed.

     

    Other = Announcement or other non-issue.