Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 33

From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 22, 2017, 01:41 UTC
Message-ID: <20171122014115.GR3429@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP8UFD0dN2V5GVokvMD-XLDEhPVJrE=m3h8oM5VC_Lq6x3=9=A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

Christian Couder wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 2:10 AM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

>> That said, I believe that the gitattributes(5) manpage does an okay
>> job of covering this and that that thread came to a clear conclusion:
>>
>>   https://public-inbox.org/git/20171026203046.fu3z5ngnw7hckfrn@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com/
>>
>> I commented at [1] that I found the conclusion of the rev news entry
>> misleading and confusing but it doesn't appear that there is anything
>> I can do about that.
>
> Well, you could have provided a pull request or otherwise suggested
> what you think would be a better conclusion for the article and why.
>
> If you just say that the above email is the conclusion, when it seems
> to me that another email from someone else is also a conclusion with a
> quite different outcome, it does not help much come to an agreement
> about what should be reported as the conclusion of the thread.

This is something I suspect journalists have to deal with all the time: when one of the subjects of an article feels misrepresented (which happens inevitably when writing to a deadline), that comes with a feeling of powerlessness that can lead to grumpiness and harsh words.

In the end you ended up improving the text enough that I don't mind any more. Sorry for the bumpy road along the way.

Thanks, Jonathan