Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 1

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mar 23, 2015, 04:49 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq619sb9ne.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEcj5uV0adYn_F6D1mmueR5F8N459dgP1TTWmPiEH9NFeDqFeQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thomas Ferris Nicolaisen <tfnico@gmail.com> writes:

Show 5 quoted lines

> 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.

Show 16 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.

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

Thanks.