{"thread":{"id":"48296","subject":"Draft of Git Rev News edition 38","startedAt":"2018-04-15T22:11:58Z","lastAt":"2018-04-17T07:33:21Z","messageCount":13,"participants":["Christian Couder","Sergey Organov","Kaartic Sivaraam","Jacob Keller"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"344759","messageId":"CAP8UFD0DagacfeismKoVgo=O1guRUV=u1=EbbwRyrY3g1MeQ8Q@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"48296","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Draft of Git Rev News edition 38","fromName":"Christian Couder","fromEmail":"christian.couder@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-04-15T22:11:46Z","receivedAt":"2018-04-15T22:11:58Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"christian.couder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/208954?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nA draft of a new Git Rev News edition is available here:\n\n https://github.com/git/git.github.io/blob/master/rev_news/drafts/edition-38.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\n https://github.com/git/git.github.io/issues/285\n\nYou can also reply to this email.\n\nIn general all kinds of contribution, for example proofreading,\nsuggestions for articles or links, help on the issues in GitHub, and\nso on, are very much appreciated.\n\nI tried to cc everyone who appears in this edition, but maybe I missed\nsome people, sorry about that.\n\nJakub, Markus, Gabriel and me plan to publish this edition on\nWednesday April 18th.\n\nThanks,\nChristian.\n"},{"id":"344778","messageId":"CAP8UFD1vFM8k-1Po=2QXZdBOuCca1Dg_FGaPnSi85hKp1je54w@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"48296","inReplyTo":"CAP8UFD0DagacfeismKoVgo=O1guRUV=u1=EbbwRyrY3g1MeQ8Q@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 38","fromName":"Christian Couder","fromEmail":"christian.couder@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-04-16T08:55:12Z","receivedAt":"2018-04-16T08:55:19Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"christian.couder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/208954?v=4"},"body":"On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:11 AM, Christian Couder\n wrote:\n>\n> A draft of a new Git Rev News edition is available here:\n>\n> https://github.com/git/git.github.io/blob/master/rev_news/drafts/edition-38.md\n\nThe draft has just been updated with 2 articles contributed by Jake\nabout rebasing merges, so I am cc'ing more people involved in those\ndiscussions.\n\nThanks Jake!\n"},{"id":"344786","messageId":"87in8rz65t.fsf@javad.com","threadId":"48296","inReplyTo":"CAP8UFD1vFM8k-1Po=2QXZdBOuCca1Dg_FGaPnSi85hKp1je54w@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 38","fromName":"Sergey Organov","fromEmail":"sorganov@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-04-16T12:29:02Z","receivedAt":"2018-04-16T12:29:11Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sorganov@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8501568?v=4"},"body":"Hi Christian,\n\nChristian Couder writes:\n> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:11 AM, Christian Couder\n> wrote:\n>>\n>> A draft of a new Git Rev News edition is available here:\n>>\n>> https://github.com/git/git.github.io/blob/master/rev_news/drafts/edition-38.md\n>\n> The draft has just been updated with 2 articles contributed by Jake\n> about rebasing merges, so I am cc'ing more people involved in those\n> discussions.\n\nI find this section of the draft pretty close to my own vision of what\nand how has been discussed, except for a few issues.\n\n[all quotations below are taken from the draft]\n\n> Some discussion about --preserve-merges and compatibility with scripts\n> (i.e. should we change or fix it? or should we deprecate it?)\n> followed.\n>\n> Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)\n> (written by Jacob Keller)\n\nWhat article by Jacob is actually meant here I have no idea, please\ncheck, as this one, and the RFC this refers to, was written by me, not\nby Jacob, and it is the outline of potential method of actually rebasing\nmerges that is discussed in the next paragraph, so it likely belongs\nright after the next paragraph:\n\n> After the discussions in the above article Sergey posted an outline of a\n> potential method for actually rebasing a merge (as opposed to recreating\n> it from scratch) which used a process of git cherry-pick -mN of the\n> merge onto each topic branch being merged, and then merging the result. \n\nThe reference to:\n\n Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)\n (written by Sergey Organov)\n\nbelongs here, if at all.\n\nIn addition, I'd like to see a minor edition to the following:\n\n> Sergey replied that he thinks the solution produces the same result as\n> his updated strategy.\n\nThis has been said in the context that assumed lack of conflicts during\napplication of both strategies. Something like this, maybe:\n\n\"Sergey replied that he thinks the solution produces the same result as\nhis updated strategy, at least when none of the strategies produce any\nconflicts.\"\n\nNext, this is very close, but not exactly right:\n\n> Further suggestions to the strategy were proposed and tested, ultimately\n> resulting in Sergey proposing the addition of using the original merge\n> commit as a merge base during the final step.\n\nThis was not an addition, this was a fix of particular mistake in the\noriginal RFC that has been revealed during testing. I didn't get it\nright at first that it's original merge commit that must be used as\nmerge base, so my original proposal ended up implicitly using wrong\nmerge base, that is the one computed by \"git merge-base U1' U2'\".\n\nSomething along these lines may fit better:\n\n\"Further suggestions to the strategy were proposed and tested,\nultimately resulting in Sergey proposing the fix to his method,\nspecifically using the original merge commit as a merge base during the\nfinal step.\"\n\nI'd also like a reference to the final fixed [RFC v2] be added right\nhere. The reference is:\n\nhttps://public-inbox.org/git/87r2oxe3o1.fsf@javad.com/\n\nThanks a lot!\n\n-- Sergey\n"},{"id":"344788","messageId":"CAP8UFD3JwHfyr=bByvjDrxboFL+yHVdZnbkXztsUuOU0aRD-9w@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"48296","inReplyTo":"87in8rz65t.fsf@javad.com","subject":"Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 38","fromName":"Christian Couder","fromEmail":"christian.couder@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-04-16T13:08:33Z","receivedAt":"2018-04-16T13:08:40Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"christian.couder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/208954?v=4"},"body":"Hi Sergey,\n\nOn Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 2:29 PM, Sergey Organov wrote:\n> Hi Christian,\n>\n> Christian Couder writes:\n>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:11 AM, Christian Couder\n>> wrote:\n>>>\n>>> A draft of a new Git Rev News edition is available here:\n>>>\n>>> https://github.com/git/git.github.io/blob/master/rev_news/drafts/edition-38.md\n>>\n>> The draft has just been updated with 2 articles contributed by Jake\n>> about rebasing merges, so I am cc'ing more people involved in those\n>> discussions.\n>\n> I find this section of the draft pretty close to my own vision of what\n> and how has been discussed, except for a few issues.\n>\n> [all quotations below are taken from the draft]\n>\n>> Some discussion about --preserve-merges and compatibility with scripts\n>> (i.e. should we change or fix it? or should we deprecate it?)\n>> followed.\n>>\n>> Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)\n>> (written by Jacob Keller)\n>\n> What article by Jacob is actually meant here I have no idea, please\n> check, as this one, and the RFC this refers to, was written by me, not\n> by Jacob,\n\nJake wrote the article below the above line. His article summarizes\nthe discussions that happened following your email that is linked to\nin the above line. The above line is actually the title of Jake's\nsecond article.\n\n> and it is the outline of potential method of actually rebasing\n> merges that is discussed in the next paragraph, so it likely belongs\n> right after the next paragraph:\n>\n>> After the discussions in the above article\n\nHere \"the above article\" means the Jake's \"branch -l: print useful\ninfo whilst rebasing a non-local branch\" article above the current\narticle.\n\n>> Sergey posted an outline of a\n>> potential method for actually rebasing a merge (as opposed to recreating\n>> it from scratch) which used a process of git cherry-pick -mN of the\n>> merge onto each topic branch being merged, and then merging the result.\n>\n> The reference to:\n>\n> Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)\n> (written by Sergey Organov)\n>\n> belongs here, if at all.\n\nYou call it a reference but it is actually the title of the article\nthat Jake wrote. Yes, it contains a link to your email, but that is\njust because we want to make it easy and straightforward for people\nwho are interested in all the discussions to find them.\n\nIt has been like this since the very beginning of Git Rev News. For\nexample in the first edition\n(https://git.github.io/rev_news/2015/03/25/edition-1/) the first\narticle was contributed by Junio so you can see \"Promoting Git\ndevelopers (written by Junio C Hamano)\" where \"Promoting Git\ndevelopers\" is a link to the following email (yeah the link is not\nvalid anymore because Gmane is no more) that I wrote:\n\nhttps://public-inbox.org/git/CAP8UFD1+rC0FjisSddDcyn1E_75wtBU9pEpUcQX5zNtd4zKYFQ@mail.gmail.com/\n\n> In addition, I'd like to see a minor edition to the following:\n>\n>> Sergey replied that he thinks the solution produces the same result as\n>> his updated strategy.\n>\n> This has been said in the context that assumed lack of conflicts during\n> application of both strategies. Something like this, maybe:\n>\n> \"Sergey replied that he thinks the solution produces the same result as\n> his updated strategy, at least when none of the strategies produce any\n> conflicts.\"\n\nOk with this change.\n\n> Next, this is very close, but not exactly right:\n>\n>> Further suggestions to the strategy were proposed and tested, ultimately\n>> resulting in Sergey proposing the addition of using the original merge\n>> commit as a merge base during the final step.\n>\n> This was not an addition, this was a fix of particular mistake in the\n> original RFC that has been revealed during testing. I didn't get it\n> right at first that it's original merge commit that must be used as\n> merge base, so my original proposal ended up implicitly using wrong\n> merge base, that is the one computed by \"git merge-base U1' U2'\".\n>\n> Something along these lines may fit better:\n>\n> \"Further suggestions to the strategy were proposed and tested,\n> ultimately resulting in Sergey proposing the fix to his method,\n> specifically using the original merge commit as a merge base during the\n> final step.\"\n\nOk with this change except for s/the fix to his method/a fix to his\nmethod/ as I think it reads better with \"a\".\n\n> I'd also like a reference to the final fixed [RFC v2] be added right\n> here. The reference is:\n>\n> https://public-inbox.org/git/87r2oxe3o1.fsf@javad.com/\n\nOk to add this link.\n\nI just pushed the changes\n\nThanks for your comments,\nChristian.\n"},{"id":"344792","messageId":"87sh7v6vn4.fsf@javad.com","threadId":"48296","inReplyTo":"CAP8UFD3JwHfyr=bByvjDrxboFL+yHVdZnbkXztsUuOU0aRD-9w@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 38","fromName":"Sergey Organov","fromEmail":"sorganov@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-04-16T15:03:43Z","receivedAt":"2018-04-16T15:03:56Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sorganov@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8501568?v=4"},"body":"Christian Couder writes:\n\n> Hi Sergey,\n>\n[...]\n> Jake wrote the article below the above line. His article summarizes\n> the discussions that happened following your email that is linked to\n> in the above line. The above line is actually the title of Jake's\n> second article.\n>\n[...]\n> Here \"the above article\" means the Jake's \"branch -l: print useful\n> info whilst rebasing a non-local branch\" article above the current\n> article.\n>\n[...]\n> You call it a reference but it is actually the title of the article\n> that Jake wrote. Yes, it contains a link to your email, but that is\n> just because we want to make it easy and straightforward for people\n> who are interested in all the discussions to find them.\n\nYeah, I see now, it was confusion on my side. Thanks for clarification!\n\nThe rest is also fine with me, and thanks for editorial changes!\n\n-- Sergey\n"},{"id":"344793","messageId":"72f42205-c9c6-03aa-e8df-12e7062e8e62@gmail.com","threadId":"48296","inReplyTo":"87sh7v6vn4.fsf@javad.com","subject":"Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 38","fromName":"Kaartic Sivaraam","fromEmail":"kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-04-16T15:07:16Z","receivedAt":"2018-04-16T15:07:42Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/12448084?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Monday 16 April 2018 08:33 PM, Sergey Organov wrote:\n> Christian Couder writes:\n>> Here \"the above article\" means the Jake's \"branch -l: print useful\n>> info whilst rebasing a non-local branch\" article above the current\n>> article.\n\nJust a little correction. I suppose Chris actually meant the \"rebase -i:\noffer to recreate merge commits\" article written by Jake and not the\n\"branch -l: print useful info whilst rebasing a non-local branch\" article.\n\nThat said, I read the draft and found it good except for two minor issues,\n\n1. I see the following sentence in the \"Rebasing merges: a jorney to the\nultimate solution (Road Clear) (written by Jacob Keller)\" article\n\n\t\"A few examples were tried, but it was proven that the original\n\tconcept did not work, as dropped commits could end up being\n\treplaid into the merge commits, turning them into \"evil\"\n\tmerges.\"\n\nI'm not sure if 'replaid' is proper English assuming the past tense of\nreplay was intended there (which I think is 'replayed').\n\n\n2. I see a minor Markdown syntax issue in the \"branch -l: print useful\ninfo whilst rebasing a non-local branch\" article.\n\n\t... reworked his original patch to improve `git branch\n\t--list̀\n\nSpecifically, in the '--list̀' part. I guess it should be \"--list`\".\n\n-- \nKaartic\n\nQUOTE:\n\n“The most valuable person on any team is the person who makes everyone\nelse on the team more valuable, not the person who knows the most.”\n\n - Joel Spolsky\n\n"},{"id":"344794","messageId":"87efjf6uwg.fsf@javad.com","threadId":"48296","inReplyTo":"72f42205-c9c6-03aa-e8df-12e7062e8e62@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 38","fromName":"Sergey Organov","fromEmail":"sorganov@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-04-16T15:19:43Z","receivedAt":"2018-04-16T15:19:53Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sorganov@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8501568?v=4"},"body":"Kaartic Sivaraam writes:\n\n> Hi,\n>\n> On Monday 16 April 2018 08:33 PM, Sergey Organov wrote:\n>> Christian Couder writes:\n>>> Here \"the above article\" means the Jake's \"branch -l: print useful\n>>> info whilst rebasing a non-local branch\" article above the current\n>>> article.\n>\n> Just a little correction. I suppose Chris actually meant the \"rebase -i:\n> offer to recreate merge commits\" article written by Jake and not the\n> \"branch -l: print useful info whilst rebasing a non-local branch\" article.\n>\n> That said, I read the draft and found it good except for two minor issues,\n>\n> 1. I see the following sentence in the \"Rebasing merges: a jorney to the\n> ultimate solution (Road Clear) (written by Jacob Keller)\" article\n>\n> \t\"A few examples were tried, but it was proven that the original\n> \tconcept did not work, as dropped commits could end up being\n> \treplaid into the merge commits, turning them into \"evil\"\n> \tmerges.\"\n>\n> I'm not sure if 'replaid' is proper English assuming the past tense of\n> replay was intended there (which I think is 'replayed').\n\nIt could have meant, say, \"reapplied\", -- we need to ask the author.\n\nWhile we are at it, please also consider to replace \"original concept\"\nby \"original algorithm\", as it didn't work due to a mistake in the\nalgorithm as opposed to failure of the concept itself.\n\n-- Sergey\n"},{"id":"344799","messageId":"CA+P7+xqLeO_OSURv+Zhw_2=DP6Gx3+C=rdA3MkCYzLxtVO4WMQ@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"48296","inReplyTo":"87in8rz65t.fsf@javad.com","subject":"Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 38","fromName":"Jacob Keller","fromEmail":"jacob.keller@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-04-16T15:52:31Z","receivedAt":"2018-04-16T15:52:58Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jacob.keller@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/874719?v=4"},"body":"On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 5:29 AM, Sergey Organov wrote:\n> Hi Christian,\n>\n> Christian Couder writes:\n>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:11 AM, Christian Couder\n>> wrote:\n>>>\n>>> A draft of a new Git Rev News edition is available here:\n>>>\n>>> https://github.com/git/git.github.io/blob/master/rev_news/drafts/edition-38.md\n>>\n>> The draft has just been updated with 2 articles contributed by Jake\n>> about rebasing merges, so I am cc'ing more people involved in those\n>> discussions.\n>\n> I find this section of the draft pretty close to my own vision of what\n> and how has been discussed, except for a few issues.\n>\n> [all quotations below are taken from the draft]\n>\n>> Some discussion about --preserve-merges and compatibility with scripts\n>> (i.e. should we change or fix it? or should we deprecate it?)\n>> followed.\n>>\n>> Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)\n>> (written by Jacob Keller)\n>\n> What article by Jacob is actually meant here I have no idea, please\n> check, as this one, and the RFC this refers to, was written by me, not\n> by Jacob, and it is the outline of potential method of actually rebasing\n> merges that is discussed in the next paragraph, so it likely belongs\n> right after the next paragraph:\n\nI believe he meant that the summary on git rev news was written by me,\nthat's all :)\n\n>\n>> After the discussions in the above article Sergey posted an outline of a\n>> potential method for actually rebasing a merge (as opposed to recreating\n>> it from scratch) which used a process of git cherry-pick -mN of the\n>> merge onto each topic branch being merged, and then merging the result.\n>\n> The reference to:\n>\n> Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)\n> (written by Sergey Organov)\n>\n> belongs here, if at all.\n>\n> In addition, I'd like to see a minor edition to the following:\n>\n>> Sergey replied that he thinks the solution produces the same result as\n>> his updated strategy.\n>\n> This has been said in the context that assumed lack of conflicts during\n> application of both strategies. Something like this, maybe:\n>\n> \"Sergey replied that he thinks the solution produces the same result as\n> his updated strategy, at least when none of the strategies produce any\n> conflicts.\"\n>\n> Next, this is very close, but not exactly right:\n>\n>> Further suggestions to the strategy were proposed and tested, ultimately\n>> resulting in Sergey proposing the addition of using the original merge\n>> commit as a merge base during the final step.\n>\n> This was not an addition, this was a fix of particular mistake in the\n> original RFC that has been revealed during testing. I didn't get it\n> right at first that it's original merge commit that must be used as\n> merge base, so my original proposal ended up implicitly using wrong\n> merge base, that is the one computed by \"git merge-base U1' U2'\".\n>\n> Something along these lines may fit better:\n>\n> \"Further suggestions to the strategy were proposed and tested,\n> ultimately resulting in Sergey proposing the fix to his method,\n> specifically using the original merge commit as a merge base during the\n> final step.\"\n>\n> I'd also like a reference to the final fixed [RFC v2] be added right\n> here. The reference is:\n>\n> https://public-inbox.org/git/87r2oxe3o1.fsf@javad.com/\n>\n> Thanks a lot!\n>\n> -- Sergey\n\nYep that all sounds right to me also.\n\nThanks,\nJake\n"},{"id":"344827","messageId":"CAP8UFD34Y0KRY7vqXU_jWGUc3tdDHB1h67ARZxi_vk1EyUV+zQ@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"48296","inReplyTo":"72f42205-c9c6-03aa-e8df-12e7062e8e62@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 38","fromName":"Christian Couder","fromEmail":"christian.couder@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-04-16T22:26:21Z","receivedAt":"2018-04-16T22:26:28Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"christian.couder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/208954?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Kaartic Sivaraam\n wrote:\n>\n> That said, I read the draft and found it good except for two minor issues,\n\nThanks for your comments!\n\n> 1. I see the following sentence in the \"Rebasing merges: a jorney to the\n> ultimate solution (Road Clear) (written by Jacob Keller)\" article\n>\n> \"A few examples were tried, but it was proven that the original\n> concept did not work, as dropped commits could end up being\n> replaid into the merge commits, turning them into \"evil\"\n> merges.\"\n>\n> I'm not sure if 'replaid' is proper English assuming the past tense of\n> replay was intended there (which I think is 'replayed').\n\nI agree and changed it to \"replayed\".\n\n> 2. I see a minor Markdown syntax issue in the \"branch -l: print useful\n> info whilst rebasing a non-local branch\" article.\n>\n> ... reworked his original patch to improve `git branch\n> --list̀\n>\n> Specifically, in the '--list̀' part. I guess it should be \"--list`\".\n\nYeah, it's fixed too.\n\nThanks,\nChristian.\n"},{"id":"344828","messageId":"CAP8UFD3ei7NEfiqBbWe_PKdrcW93t2pA=u-ub29X+jGOi9-Jwg@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"48296","inReplyTo":"87efjf6uwg.fsf@javad.com","subject":"Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 38","fromName":"Christian Couder","fromEmail":"christian.couder@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-04-16T22:30:21Z","receivedAt":"2018-04-16T22:30:27Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"christian.couder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/208954?v=4"},"body":"On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 5:19 PM, Sergey Organov wrote:\n> Kaartic Sivaraam writes:\n>\n>> 1. I see the following sentence in the \"Rebasing merges: a jorney to the\n>> ultimate solution (Road Clear) (written by Jacob Keller)\" article\n>>\n>> \"A few examples were tried, but it was proven that the original\n>> concept did not work, as dropped commits could end up being\n>> replaid into the merge commits, turning them into \"evil\"\n>> merges.\"\n>>\n>> I'm not sure if 'replaid' is proper English assuming the past tense of\n>> replay was intended there (which I think is 'replayed').\n>\n> It could have meant, say, \"reapplied\", -- we need to ask the author.\n\nYeah it could but I would say that it is not very likely compared to\n\"replayed\", so I changed it to \"replayed\". And yeah I can change it to\nsomething else if Jake (who is Cc'ed) prefers.\n\n> While we are at it, please also consider to replace \"original concept\"\n> by \"original algorithm\", as it didn't work due to a mistake in the\n> algorithm as opposed to failure of the concept itself.\n\nOk, it's now \"original algorithm\".\n\nThanks,\nChristian.\n"},{"id":"344852","messageId":"CA+P7+xq1M25NFEBzXtWEe=mD2trY+7vip_MCHegrr=qtgTBLyQ@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"48296","inReplyTo":"CAP8UFD3ei7NEfiqBbWe_PKdrcW93t2pA=u-ub29X+jGOi9-Jwg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 38","fromName":"Jacob Keller","fromEmail":"jacob.keller@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-04-17T00:58:15Z","receivedAt":"2018-04-17T00:58:43Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jacob.keller@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/874719?v=4"},"body":"On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 3:30 PM, Christian Couder\n wrote:\n> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 5:19 PM, Sergey Organov wrote:\n>> Kaartic Sivaraam writes:\n>>\n>>> 1. I see the following sentence in the \"Rebasing merges: a jorney to the\n>>> ultimate solution (Road Clear) (written by Jacob Keller)\" article\n>>>\n>>> \"A few examples were tried, but it was proven that the original\n>>> concept did not work, as dropped commits could end up being\n>>> replaid into the merge commits, turning them into \"evil\"\n>>> merges.\"\n>>>\n>>> I'm not sure if 'replaid' is proper English assuming the past tense of\n>>> replay was intended there (which I think is 'replayed').\n>>\n>> It could have meant, say, \"reapplied\", -- we need to ask the author.\n>\n> Yeah it could but I would say that it is not very likely compared to\n> \"replayed\", so I changed it to \"replayed\". And yeah I can change it to\n> something else if Jake (who is Cc'ed) prefers.\n>\n>> While we are at it, please also consider to replace \"original concept\"\n>> by \"original algorithm\", as it didn't work due to a mistake in the\n>> algorithm as opposed to failure of the concept itself.\n>\n> Ok, it's now \"original algorithm\".\n>\n> Thanks,\n> Christian.\n\nReplayed is accurate.\n\nThanks,\nJake\n"},{"id":"344857","messageId":"c805a84c-a29e-6652-d644-ee1ccf4c7fbc@gmail.com","threadId":"48296","inReplyTo":"CAP8UFD34Y0KRY7vqXU_jWGUc3tdDHB1h67ARZxi_vk1EyUV+zQ@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 38","fromName":"Kaartic Sivaraam","fromEmail":"kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-04-17T02:17:05Z","receivedAt":"2018-04-17T02:17:51Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/12448084?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Tuesday 17 April 2018 03:56 AM, Christian Couder wrote:\n> Hi,\n> \n> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Kaartic Sivaraam\n> wrote:\n>>\n>> That said, I read the draft and found it good except for two minor issues,\n> \n> Thanks for your comments!\n> \n\nYou're welcome!\n\nI'm sorry to say that I read only part of the draft when I sent my\nprevious email though I accidentally didn't mention it explicitly.\n\nNow that I have read the draft completely I find a few typos in the\n\"Developer Spotlight: Jiang Xin\" section:\n\n1.\n\"... because I feel it is hard to track changes of GitHub UI and the\nbook will become obsolte very quickly.\"\n\nobsolte -> obsolete\n\n\n2.\n\"We also developped ...\"\n\ndevelopped -> developed\n\n\nOn seeing the section \"Light reading\" to be empty, I thought I could\nsuggest something. I'm not sure whether you take Stack Overflow answers\nfor a light reading but I found the following answer to be interesting,\n\nhttps://stackoverflow.com/a/6521223/5614968\n\nThat's all.\n\n-- \nKaartic\n\nQUOTE:\n\n“The most valuable person on any team is the person who makes everyone\nelse on the team more valuable, not the person who knows the most.”\n\n - Joel Spolsky\n\n"},{"id":"344865","messageId":"CAP8UFD2h=_jHzCjaFgQwm_RqpYF1ditPbBB6FybB2V6Fw6boXQ@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"48296","inReplyTo":"c805a84c-a29e-6652-d644-ee1ccf4c7fbc@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 38","fromName":"Christian Couder","fromEmail":"christian.couder@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-04-17T07:33:11Z","receivedAt":"2018-04-17T07:33:21Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"christian.couder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/208954?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 4:17 AM, Kaartic Sivaraam\n wrote:\n>\n> On Tuesday 17 April 2018 03:56 AM, Christian Couder wrote:\n>>\n>> Thanks for your comments!\n>\n> You're welcome!\n>\n> I'm sorry to say that I read only part of the draft when I sent my\n> previous email though I accidentally didn't mention it explicitly.\n\nNo problem.\n\n> Now that I have read the draft completely I find a few typos in the\n> \"Developer Spotlight: Jiang Xin\" section:\n>\n> 1.\n> \"... because I feel it is hard to track changes of GitHub UI and the\n> book will become obsolte very quickly.\"\n>\n> obsolte -> obsolete\n\nYeah.\n\n> 2.\n> \"We also developped ...\"\n>\n> developped -> developed\n\nSure. Both typos have been fixed. Thanks!\n\n> On seeing the section \"Light reading\" to be empty, I thought I could\n> suggest something. I'm not sure whether you take Stack Overflow answers\n> for a light reading but I found the following answer to be interesting,\n>\n> https://stackoverflow.com/a/6521223/5614968\n\nI am a bit reluctant to add random SO pages to this section. I think\nwe have used it to suggest real articles and I would prefer to keep it\nthat way. Maybe we could add another section with links from SO or\nother Q & A sites, but until we decide to do that and find people\ninterested to regularly contribute to it, I would prefer not to add\nsuch links.\n\nUsually Jakub Narebski (in Cc) and a few other persons contributes to\nthe Other News sections (\"Various\", \"Light Reading\" and \"Git tools and\nsites\") sometimes just before publication time, and I might contribute\na little to them too this evening or tomorrow. So it's not a big deal\nif there is not much in these sections at this time.\n\nThanks,\nChristian.\n"}]}