Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 1

> Thomas Ferris Nicolaisen <tfnico@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> 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.
>
> I agree weekly would be too much for any hobbist, given how
> high-volume our list has, but I probably shouldn't have said
> "periodical".  Surely, aiming for consistent update is a very good
> thing to gain reader trust if anything else, but it is OK if it were
> "we will see a new release when enough interesting things happen",
> too.

> The primary reason I suggested to explicitly state the beginning of
> coverage is to set and manage the expectation of the readers.  I
> think the current draft roughly covers 1/4 - 1/3 of discussions that
> happened in the month of March 2015 and nothing earlier than that,
> so "This issue covers what happened in March" or something would be
> appropriate.  I'll throw a pull-request.

>>>  - 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.
>
> I took a stab at this myself, and threw another pull-request.
>
> Thanks.