Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 5

From: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
Date: Jul 8, 2015, 07:22 UTC
Message-ID: <559CCFBE.9000702@drmicha.warpmail.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cRv6g_nAEdGtrESFiE+5+OxEHwjhEPX0Q0WL+eHzkCAGA@mail.gmail.com>

Eric Sunshine venit, vidit, dixit 06.07.2015 01:12:

Show 13 quoted lines

> On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 6:35 PM, Thomas Ferris Nicolaisen
> <tfnico@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:01 AM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> 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