{"thread":{"id":"38882","subject":"Draft of Git Rev News edition 1","startedAt":"2015-03-22T11:03:28Z","lastAt":"2015-03-23T05:00:13Z","messageCount":9,"participants":["Christian Couder","David Kastrup","Junio C Hamano","Thomas Ferris Nicolaisen"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"258288","messageId":"CAP8UFD1WtwKri8cWABnzeRvxKhdNmUfVw5xm=F4oLrevuOGyUA@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"38882","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Draft of Git Rev News edition 1","fromName":"Christian Couder","fromEmail":"christian.couder@gmail.com","sentAt":"2015-03-22T11:03:28Z","receivedAt":"2015-03-22T11:03:28Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"christian.couder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/208954?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nA draft of Git Rev News edition 1 is available here:\n\nhttps://github.com/git/git.github.io/blob/master/rev_news/draft/edition-1.md\n\nEveryone is welcome to contribute in any section either by editing the\nabove page on GitHub and sending a pull request, or by commenting on\nthis GitHub issue:\n\nhttps://github.com/git/git.github.io/issues/17\n\nYou can also reply to this email.\n\nI tried to cc the persons who appear in the edition but maybe I missed\nsome, sorry about that.\n\nThomas and myself plan to publish this edition on Wednesday the 25th of March.\n\nWe call it an \"edition\" instead of an \"issue\" to avoid confusion with\nGitHub issues.\n\nThanks,\nChristian\n"},{"id":"258290","messageId":"87lhipnupj.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org","threadId":"38882","inReplyTo":"CAP8UFD1WtwKri8cWABnzeRvxKhdNmUfVw5xm=F4oLrevuOGyUA@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 1","fromName":"David Kastrup","fromEmail":"dak@gnu.org","sentAt":"2015-03-22T11:21:44Z","receivedAt":"2015-03-22T11:21:44Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"dak@gnu.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/52141349?v=4"},"body":"Christian Couder writes:\n\n> Hi,\n>\n> A draft of Git Rev News edition 1 is available here:\n>\n> https://github.com/git/git.github.io/blob/master/rev_news/draft/edition-1.md\n>\n> Everyone is welcome to contribute in any section either by editing the\n> above page on GitHub and sending a pull request, or by commenting on\n> this GitHub issue:\n>\n> https://github.com/git/git.github.io/issues/17\n>\n> You can also reply to this email.\n\nI've seen\n\n David Kastrup (dak at gnu.org) previously reimplemented significant\n parts of \"git blame\" for a vast gain in performance with complex\n histories and large files. As working on free software is his sole\n source of income, please consider contributing to his remuneration\n if you find this kind of improvements useful.\n\nThank you very much for this heads-up. However, I'd replace\n\"previously\" with \"as of version 2.1.0\". That's where the big\ndifference is, so if people actually are impacted they'll know whether\nand what to benchmark and/or upgrade.\n\n-- \nDavid Kastrup\n"},{"id":"258292","messageId":"CAP8UFD1HFVKr1xADSGDzJGXeve7W9eenpL16kRa_2z2rsJU_GA@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"38882","inReplyTo":"87lhipnupj.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org","subject":"Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 1","fromName":"Christian Couder","fromEmail":"christian.couder@gmail.com","sentAt":"2015-03-22T12:19:13Z","receivedAt":"2015-03-22T12:19:13Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"christian.couder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/208954?v=4"},"body":"On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 12:21 PM, David Kastrup wrote:\n> I've seen\n>\n> David Kastrup (dak at gnu.org) previously reimplemented significant\n> parts of \"git blame\" for a vast gain in performance with complex\n> histories and large files. As working on free software is his sole\n> source of income, please consider contributing to his remuneration\n> if you find this kind of improvements useful.\n>\n> Thank you very much for this heads-up. However, I'd replace\n> \"previously\" with \"as of version 2.1.0\". That's where the big\n> difference is, so if people actually are impacted they'll know whether\n> and what to benchmark and/or upgrade.\n\nOk, there is now \"as of version 2.1.0\".\n"},{"id":"258303","messageId":"CAPc5daVU77hpsWeJb9BhvHW9YwoSVb8Jgc38zZ9xEnx0cB2QDw@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"38882","inReplyTo":"CAP8UFD1WtwKri8cWABnzeRvxKhdNmUfVw5xm=F4oLrevuOGyUA@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 1","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2015-03-22T18:47:28Z","receivedAt":"2015-03-22T18:47:28Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Thanks.\n\nThe most important question I would ask you is this:\n\nDid you two enjoy writing it?\n\nThat ends up counting the most, as it affects the quality of the\nend result (readers would enjoy reading it and feel the love you\nput into its production), and also its longer term relevance (if it\ngets to be more burden than enjoyment to you, it won't last).\n\nAnd I hope the answer is a resounding yes ;-)\n\nA few comments:\n\n - Some might be a bit too detailed. Because each header is\n a pointer to the list archive, picking only the points that you\n found are the most thought-provoking may be a good way\n to shorten it (and readers interested in the topic can follow\n the link). Another would be to drop the mention like \"Junio\n also reviewed...\" that does not say what was said in the\n review. If a review did not have much thought-provoking\n value to deserve a summary, perhaps it is enough only to\n leave it to be discovered by readers who are so interested\n to follow the link to find the full discussion.\n\n - You do not list your own contribution to the discussions,\n but you should. Of course it would take some discipline\n to prevent the newsletter from appearing to have a self-\n promoting agenda, but I think you two are adult enough\n to be capable of handling that ;-)\n\n - As a periodical, you would want to have \"This edition covers\n period between these two dates\" at the beginning of each\n and every edition. Publication date may serve as the upper\n bound of the range, but for an inaugural one, it is essential\n to have the date the coverage begins.\n\n - As an inaugural edition, we may want to have a word on\n the purpose of the publication. Perhaps a sentence or two\n to declare what the publication is about in the \"Welcome to\"\n section is good. I would imagine that the primary purpose\n is to cover the discussions on the list (but don't call that\n \"the list\" in this paragraph, but spell it out to help readers,\n as \"the Git mailing list\") that is not visible in the \"git log\"\n output from my tree.\n\n - As an inaugural edition, we may want to have a word on\n how it came in existence by covering the discussion that\n led to its birth. Perhaps the discussion that led to the\n publication should be made into as an item on its own,\n next to \"make git-pull a builtin\", \"Forbid log --graph...\" etc.\n Because it is neither a review nor a support discussion,\n \"Reviews & Support\" heading may want to become\n \"Discussions\". I think that is a better title for the section\n anyway, if its purpose is \"what happened on the list that\n are not visible from \"git log\", as I expect future editions\n to cover design discussions that advanced the shared\n understanding of a problem but not quite solidified to\n become a patch series.\n\n> Thomas and myself plan to publish this edition on Wednesday the 25th of March.\n>\n> We call it an \"edition\" instead of an \"issue\" to avoid confusion with\n> GitHub issues.\n\nGood thinking.\n\nThanks again.\n"},{"id":"258314","messageId":"CAEcj5uV0adYn_F6D1mmueR5F8N459dgP1TTWmPiEH9NFeDqFeQ@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"38882","inReplyTo":"CAPc5daVU77hpsWeJb9BhvHW9YwoSVb8Jgc38zZ9xEnx0cB2QDw@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 1","fromName":"Thomas Ferris Nicolaisen","fromEmail":"tfnico@gmail.com","sentAt":"2015-03-22T20:50:53Z","receivedAt":"2015-03-22T20:50:53Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"tfnico@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/628cf28a25ca4c596c7284562100f70f0ef908bcbfadd4da1eb3d48c23658d01?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> Thanks.\n>\n> The most important question I would ask you is this:\n>\n> Did you two enjoy writing it?\n\nTo be clear, apart from some minor wording and nitpicking, I only\ncontributed the links from outside the list. This is an activity I\nmostly do regardless, either on Twitter or at Google+. Gathering the\nlinks in Git Rev News just means I collect them in a central place\ninstead of sporadically posting on social media. So I think I can keep\nit up for an extended period, and if I ever get fed up, there are\nhopefully others who can keep that part going.\n\nRefining list activity into headlines, like Christian did, is a bigger\nchallenge in my eyes. I think this depends on having someone active on\nthe list, who also has time for producing this reader's digest.\n\nI guess the long term success depends, as with any volunteer effort,\non how many others join in the fun, and how popular it gets outside\nthe list.\n\n> - As a periodical, you would want to have \"This edition covers\n> period between these two dates\" at the beginning of each\n> and every edition. Publication date may serve as the upper\n> bound of the range, but for an inaugural one, it is essential\n> to have the date the coverage begins.\n\nGood point. There hasn't been a decision on frequency. Weekly is a\ngood rhythm for publications seeking readership, but that's a lot of\nwork. My vote is we should first aim for a monthly consistent release.\nI'll try working this into the draft, and Christian may change as he\nsees fit.\n\n> - As an inaugural edition, we may want to have a word on\n> the purpose of the publication. Perhaps a sentence or two\n> to declare what the publication is about in the \"Welcome to\"\n> section is good. I would imagine that the primary purpose\n> is to cover the discussions on the list (but don't call that\n> \"the list\" in this paragraph, but spell it out to help readers,\n> as \"the Git mailing list\") that is not visible in the \"git log\"\n> output from my tree.\n\nNoted. I'l try working this in as well.\n\n> - As an inaugural edition, we may want to have a word on\n> how it came in existence by covering the discussion that\n> led to its birth. Perhaps the discussion that led to the\n> publication should be made into as an item on its own,\n> next to \"make git-pull a builtin\", \"Forbid log --graph...\" etc.\n> Because it is neither a review nor a support discussion,\n> \"Reviews & Support\" heading may want to become\n> \"Discussions\". I think that is a better title for the section\n> anyway, if its purpose is \"what happened on the list that\n> are not visible from \"git log\", as I expect future editions\n> to cover design discussions that advanced the shared\n> understanding of a problem but not quite solidified to\n> become a patch series.\n>\n\nI hope it's OK that I leave this bit to Christian.\n\nThanks for the feedback!\n"},{"id":"258315","messageId":"CAEcj5uWcybmPbbXNHgSAj=0yi4GjR+-VW744+i1+Gg2p_3g4wA@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"38882","inReplyTo":"87lhipnupj.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org","subject":"Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 1","fromName":"Thomas Ferris Nicolaisen","fromEmail":"tfnico@gmail.com","sentAt":"2015-03-22T20:52:58Z","receivedAt":"2015-03-22T20:52:58Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"tfnico@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/628cf28a25ca4c596c7284562100f70f0ef908bcbfadd4da1eb3d48c23658d01?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 12:21 PM, David Kastrup wrote:\n> David Kastrup (dak at gnu.org) previously reimplemented significant\n> parts of \"git blame\" for a vast gain in performance with complex\n> histories and large files. As working on free software is his sole\n> source of income, please consider contributing to his remuneration\n> if you find this kind of improvements useful.\n>\n> Thank you very much for this heads-up.\n\nDo you have a link to where people can go to donate/contribute? I\nsearched around a bit but couldn't find anything.\n"},{"id":"258319","messageId":"87fv8wd8uj.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org","threadId":"38882","inReplyTo":"CAEcj5uWcybmPbbXNHgSAj=0yi4GjR+-VW744+i1+Gg2p_3g4wA@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 1","fromName":"David Kastrup","fromEmail":"dak@gnu.org","sentAt":"2015-03-22T21:24:04Z","receivedAt":"2015-03-22T21:24:04Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"dak@gnu.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/52141349?v=4"},"body":"Thomas Ferris Nicolaisen writes:\n\n> On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 12:21 PM, David Kastrup wrote:\n>> David Kastrup (dak at gnu.org) previously reimplemented significant\n>> parts of \"git blame\" for a vast gain in performance with complex\n>> histories and large files. As working on free software is his sole\n>> source of income, please consider contributing to his remuneration\n>> if you find this kind of improvements useful.\n>>\n>> Thank you very much for this heads-up.\n>\n> Do you have a link to where people can go to donate/contribute? I\n> searched around a bit but couldn't find anything.\n\nMy Email address is linked at PayPal. However, it's the more affordable\noption in the Euro zone (which most definitely does not include GB) to\nask me for my bank account data: SEPA-region transfers are by EU law\nrequired not to differentiate between in-country or cross-country\npayments.\n\nI don't maintain a personal home page or a blog or similar, so there is\nreally not much to point people to than my Email address.\n\n-- \nDavid Kastrup\n"},{"id":"258346","messageId":"xmqq619sb9ne.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com","threadId":"38882","inReplyTo":"CAEcj5uV0adYn_F6D1mmueR5F8N459dgP1TTWmPiEH9NFeDqFeQ@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 1","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2015-03-23T04:49:41Z","receivedAt":"2015-03-23T04:49:41Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Thomas Ferris Nicolaisen writes:\n\n> Good point. There hasn't been a decision on frequency. Weekly is a\n> good rhythm for publications seeking readership, but that's a lot of\n> work. My vote is we should first aim for a monthly consistent release.\n> I'll try working this into the draft, and Christian may change as he\n> sees fit.\n\nI agree weekly would be too much for any hobbist, given how\nhigh-volume our list has, but I probably shouldn't have said\n\"periodical\". Surely, aiming for consistent update is a very good\nthing to gain reader trust if anything else, but it is OK if it were\n\"we will see a new release when enough interesting things happen\",\ntoo.\n\nThe primary reason I suggested to explicitly state the beginning of\ncoverage is to set and manage the expectation of the readers. I\nthink the current draft roughly covers 1/4 - 1/3 of discussions that\nhappened in the month of March 2015 and nothing earlier than that,\nso \"This issue covers what happened in March\" or something would be\nappropriate. I'll throw a pull-request.\n\n>> - As an inaugural edition, we may want to have a word on\n>> how it came in existence by covering the discussion that\n>> led to its birth. Perhaps the discussion that led to the\n>> publication should be made into as an item on its own,\n>> next to \"make git-pull a builtin\", \"Forbid log --graph...\" etc.\n>> Because it is neither a review nor a support discussion,\n>> \"Reviews & Support\" heading may want to become\n>> \"Discussions\". I think that is a better title for the section\n>> anyway, if its purpose is \"what happened on the list that\n>> are not visible from \"git log\", as I expect future editions\n>> to cover design discussions that advanced the shared\n>> understanding of a problem but not quite solidified to\n>> become a patch series.\n>>\n>\n> I hope it's OK that I leave this bit to Christian.\n\nI took a stab at this myself, and threw another pull-request.\n\nThanks.\n"},{"id":"258347","messageId":"CAP8UFD21PHJqv2z=00TXDFse0_LwbGi_Qjk9y0WJ45VHcLdnMA@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"38882","inReplyTo":"xmqq619sb9ne.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com","subject":"Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 1","fromName":"Christian Couder","fromEmail":"christian.couder@gmail.com","sentAt":"2015-03-23T05:00:13Z","receivedAt":"2015-03-23T05:00:13Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"christian.couder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/208954?v=4"},"body":"On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 5:49 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> Thomas Ferris Nicolaisen writes:\n>\n>> Good point. There hasn't been a decision on frequency. Weekly is a\n>> good rhythm for publications seeking readership, but that's a lot of\n>> work. My vote is we should first aim for a monthly consistent release.\n>> I'll try working this into the draft, and Christian may change as he\n>> sees fit.\n>\n> I agree weekly would be too much for any hobbist, given how\n> high-volume our list has, but I probably shouldn't have said\n> \"periodical\". Surely, aiming for consistent update is a very good\n> thing to gain reader trust if anything else, but it is OK if it were\n> \"we will see a new release when enough interesting things happen\",\n> too.\n\nYeah, I prefer not to commit to a specific frequency...\n\n> The primary reason I suggested to explicitly state the beginning of\n> coverage is to set and manage the expectation of the readers. I\n> think the current draft roughly covers 1/4 - 1/3 of discussions that\n> happened in the month of March 2015 and nothing earlier than that,\n> so \"This issue covers what happened in March\" or something would be\n> appropriate. I'll throw a pull-request.\n\n... but I agree that we should say what we cover.\n\n>>> - As an inaugural edition, we may want to have a word on\n>>> how it came in existence by covering the discussion that\n>>> led to its birth. Perhaps the discussion that led to the\n>>> publication should be made into as an item on its own,\n>>> next to \"make git-pull a builtin\", \"Forbid log --graph...\" etc.\n>>> Because it is neither a review nor a support discussion,\n>>> \"Reviews & Support\" heading may want to become\n>>> \"Discussions\". I think that is a better title for the section\n>>> anyway, if its purpose is \"what happened on the list that\n>>> are not visible from \"git log\", as I expect future editions\n>>> to cover design discussions that advanced the shared\n>>> understanding of a problem but not quite solidified to\n>>> become a patch series.\n>>>\n>>\n>> I hope it's OK that I leave this bit to Christian.\n>\n> I took a stab at this myself, and threw another pull-request.\n>\n> Thanks.\n\nThank you for your pull requests.\nThey are all merged and your name is in the Credits section at the end.\n\nThanks,\nChristian.\n"}]}