"name has" or "names have"

tof = typo

The use-case paragraph should probably mention that it's possible to configure also directly AD joined clients, albeit not centrally.

Could you clarify here that the 'view' is an 'IPA ID-view' ?

Could you add that the random order doesn't matter because normally a qualified name must be used anyway, so it is not a bug?

I would prefer if either this section or the how to test section (or perhaps both?) had a paragraph (and/or a test case) about conflicting names like Administrator.

Hmm. I can't reply directly to your comments.

So, about the "Could you add that the random order doesn't matter because normally a qualified name must be used anyway, so it is not a bug?" ...

I can clarify it's not a bug because we just flatten the list in the same way the list would be transcendent anyway (in other words, it don't change the order that was previously built).

I guess just saying that it's not a bug because using fully-qualified names is the normal use case is exactly the reason why it's not a bug.

Does that make sense to you, @jhrozek ?

Actually, I was wrong. you can have a shortname and a random order if you just configure use_fully_qualified_names=false but don't configure the domain order. Then I guess the sentence is good as-is.

New patch has been pushed!

Pagure says: "The pull-request can be merged with a merge commit"
It would be good to rebase PR to have fast-forward merge :-)

Pagure says: "The pull-request can be merged with a merge commit"
It would be good to rebase PR to have fast-forward merge :-)

Done!

LGTM