Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 5

From: Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
Date: Jul 8, 2015, 10:29 UTC
Message-ID: <CAP8UFD1=KxcYyFfFZ++5Vty-KMv-ci8dtdo4bfX7oj_wgLOE7g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqegkjyu0b.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

> Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:
>
>> Maybe a matter of taste, but I think in general we could do with a bit
>> less of "narrating" and more of "summarizing".
>
> True.

I think sometimes the details might be interesting for different reasons.

Show 13 quoted lines

>> 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".
>
> I do not see "Michael pointed out that there was a slightly better
> way to do that" as saying anything bad about his contribution.

On the contrary I think that the way Dscho used sed shows some cli proficiency and might be interesting to some people.

Show 6 quoted lines

> I however do agree with you that we want to see the newsletter aim
> to summarize things better.  Instead of saying "Dscho suggested X,
> Michael then refined it to Y", with full details of what X and Y
> looked like, it would be more appropriate for the target audience to
> say "Dscho and Michael worked together to come up with a solution
> Y".

With the details, I think readers are more likely to remember the --merges option.