The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

Conflicts

No conflicts as of last run.

ACK 9bcea02c5b5fb3d8c622a4a0dce20a4ab8961d99

Thanks for updating.

ACK 86a4a15

ACK 86a4a15

We're all on the same team. If you decide not to reopen as discussed on IRC, I can pickup.

Reopened after reading this question: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/111801/restrict-bitcoin-core-to-tor/

Change still makes sense, respect reviewers for their time to review and agree, hopeful this could get merged and improve docs.

I think this isn't a bad (nor a good) idea.

Because the Don't Repeat Yourself principle,
the affected lines shouldn't be edited manually,
but be assembled from their true sources
residing somewhere else.

I never realized this is mentioned somewhere in docs until I read it in one of the comments in some pull request. DNS is obviously important if discussing privacy so which doc would work better for users: 1 or 2?

I have also tried other things to highlight this but they were not acceptable to other reviewers: #22317 (comment)

which doc would work better for users: 1 or 2?

for many users who would value better that doc be
perfectly synced to the program output, 2.

which doc would work better for users: 1 or 2?

for many users who would value better that doc be perfectly synced to the program output, 2.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I disagree though and this doc can be improved a lot. This is one of the improvements which had some ACKs.

ACK 86a4a15