Draft of Git Rev News edition 1

Hi,

A draft of Git Rev News edition 1 is available here:

https://github.com/git/git.github.io/blob/master/rev_news/draft/edition-1.md

Everyone is welcome to contribute in any section either by editing the above page on GitHub and sending a pull request, or by commenting on this GitHub issue:

https://github.com/git/git.github.io/issues/17

You can also reply to this email.

I tried to cc the persons who appear in the edition but maybe I missed some, sorry about that.

Thomas and myself plan to publish this edition on Wednesday the 25th of March.

We call it an "edition" instead of an "issue" to avoid confusion with GitHub issues.

Thanks, Christian

Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> writes:

I've seen

    David Kastrup (dak at gnu.org) previously reimplemented significant
    parts of "git blame" for a vast gain in performance with complex
    histories and large files. As working on free software is his sole
    source of income, please consider contributing to his remuneration
    if you find this kind of improvements useful.

Thank you very much for this heads-up. However, I'd replace "previously" with "as of version 2.1.0". That's where the big difference is, so if people actually are impacted they'll know whether and what to benchmark and/or upgrade.

On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 12:21 PM, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:

Ok, there is now "as of version 2.1.0".

On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 12:21 PM, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:

Do you have a link to where people can go to donate/contribute? I searched around a bit but couldn't find anything.

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

My Email address is linked at PayPal. However, it's the more affordable option in the Euro zone (which most definitely does not include GB) to ask me for my bank account data: SEPA-region transfers are by EU law required not to differentiate between in-country or cross-country payments.

I don't maintain a personal home page or a blog or similar, so there is really not much to point people to than my Email address.

Thanks.

The most important question I would ask you is this:

Did you two enjoy writing it?

That ends up counting the most, as it affects the quality of the end result (readers would enjoy reading it and feel the love you put into its production), and also its longer term relevance (if it gets to be more burden than enjoyment to you, it won't last).

And I hope the answer is a resounding yes ;-)

A few comments:

 - Some might be a bit too detailed. Because each header is
   a pointer to the list archive, picking only the points that you
   found are the most thought-provoking may be a good way
   to shorten it (and readers interested in the topic can follow
   the link). Another would be to drop the mention like "Junio
   also reviewed..." that does not say what was said in the
   review. If a review did not have much thought-provoking
   value to deserve a summary, perhaps it is enough only to
   leave it to be discovered by readers who are so interested
   to follow the link to find the full discussion.

 - You do not list your own contribution to the discussions,
   but you should. Of course it would take some discipline
   to prevent the newsletter from appearing to have a self-
   promoting agenda, but I think you two are adult enough
   to be capable of handling that ;-)

 - 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.

 - 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.

 - 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.

Good thinking.

Thanks again.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Thanks for the feedback!

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

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.

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

Thanks.

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 5:49 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Yeah, I prefer not to commit to a specific frequency...

... but I agree that we should say what we cover.

Thank you for your pull requests. They are all merged and your name is in the Credits section at the end.

Thanks, Christian.