Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 1

From: Thomas Ferris Nicolaisen <tfnico@gmail.com>
Date: Mar 22, 2015, 20:50 UTC
Message-ID: <CAEcj5uV0adYn_F6D1mmueR5F8N459dgP1TTWmPiEH9NFeDqFeQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPc5daVU77hpsWeJb9BhvHW9YwoSVb8Jgc38zZ9xEnx0cB2QDw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> Thanks.
>
> The most important question I would ask you is this:
>
> Did you two enjoy writing it?

To be clear, apart from some minor wording and nitpicking, I only contributed the links from outside the list. This is an activity I mostly do regardless, either on Twitter or at Google+. Gathering the links in Git Rev News just means I collect them in a central place instead of sporadically posting on social media. So I think I can keep it up for an extended period, and if I ever get fed up, there are hopefully others who can keep that part going.

Refining list activity into headlines, like Christian did, is a bigger challenge in my eyes. I think this depends on having someone active on the list, who also has time for producing this reader's digest.

I guess the long term success depends, as with any volunteer effort, on how many others join in the fun, and how popular it gets outside the list.

Show 5 quoted lines

>  - As a periodical, you would want to have "This edition covers
>    period between these two dates" at the beginning of each
>    and every edition. Publication date may serve as the upper
>    bound of the range, but for an inaugural one, it is essential
>    to have the date the coverage begins.

Good point. There hasn't been a decision on frequency. Weekly is a good rhythm for publications seeking readership, but that's a lot of work. My vote is we should first aim for a monthly consistent release. I'll try working this into the draft, and Christian may change as he sees fit.

Show 8 quoted lines

>  - As an inaugural edition, we may want to have a word on
>    the purpose of the publication. Perhaps a sentence or two
>    to declare what the publication is about in the "Welcome to"
>    section is good. I would imagine that the primary purpose
>    is to cover the discussions on the list (but don't call that
>    "the list" in this paragraph, but spell it out to help readers,
>    as "the Git mailing list") that is not visible in the "git log"
>    output from my tree.

Noted. I'l try working this in as well.

Show 14 quoted lines

>  - As an inaugural edition, we may want to have a word on
>    how it came in existence by covering the discussion that
>    led to its birth. Perhaps the discussion that led to the
>    publication should be made into as an item on its own,
>    next to "make git-pull a builtin", "Forbid log --graph..." etc.
>    Because it is neither a review nor a support discussion,
>    "Reviews & Support" heading may want to become
>    "Discussions". I think that is a better title for the section
>    anyway, if its purpose is "what happened on the list that
>    are not visible from "git log", as I expect future editions
>    to cover design discussions that advanced the shared
>    understanding of a problem but not quite solidified to
>    become a patch series.
>

I hope it's OK that I leave this bit to Christian.

Thanks for the feedback!