Subject: Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 5

From: Michael J Gruber <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 09:22:38 +0200

Eric Sunshine venit, vidit, dixit 06.07.2015 01:12:
> On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 6:35 PM, Thomas Ferris Nicolaisen
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:01 AM, Eric Sunshine <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>> Unfortunately, the non-ASCII characters
>>> in Duy's name got corrupted, and the botch is present in the patch I
>>> sent. Sorry. Not sure how that happened. Can you fix it locally?
>>
>> Fixed [1].
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/git/git.github.io/commit/b5f7d6523ca6a634d568fc9017135ff2a9ea6462
> 
> Thanks.
> 

Maybe a matter of taste, but I think in general we could do with a bit
less of "narrating" and more of "summarizing".

Just as an example, in the section on "visualizing merge diffs after the
fact", few people will be interested in the detail that I pointed out
the "--merges" option of rev-list to Dscho. While that recollection is
true and everything on the git-ml is public, I consider "Git Rev News"
to be "more public", targetted to a wider audience than the regulars.
They don't all know how much Git owes to Dscho. If things like this end
up in the news it makes me ponder for each on-list reply whether I'd
rather reply in private. Maybe I'm being overly sensitive (though not
affected in this case), but I just feel there are different degrees of
"public".

The pattern "...led to a discussion [between...] that resulted in..."
that we have in other places seems to be a good guideline.

Michael