Draft of Git Rev News edition 37

> Hi,
>
> A draft of a new Git Rev News edition is available here:
>
>   https://github.com/git/git.github.io/blob/master/rev_news/drafts/edition-37.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/279
>
> You can also reply to this email.
>
> In general all kinds of contribution, for example proofreading,
> suggestions for articles or links, help on the issues in GitHub, and
> so on, are very much appreciated.
>
> I tried to cc everyone who appears in this edition, but maybe I missed
> some people, sorry about that.
>
> Jakub, Markus, Gabriel and me plan to publish this edition on
> Wednesday March 21st.
>
> Thanks,
> Christian.

> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I don't have a good summary yet, but I think a section about the
> > discussion regarding the new recreate-merges and rebasing merges
> > that's been on going might be useful?
> 
> Yeah sure, we would gladly accept a summary of this discussion.

> > a lot of that discussion occurred prior to git-merge (tho it's been
> > ongoing since then?).
> 
> If you want to take the latest discussions into account, the summary
> could be either split into two parts, one for this edition and the
> other one for the next edition. Or we could wait and have the whole
> summary in the next edition.

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2018, Christian Couder wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I don't have a good summary yet, but I think a section about the
>> > discussion regarding the new recreate-merges and rebasing merges
>> > that's been on going might be useful?
>>
>> Yeah sure, we would gladly accept a summary of this discussion.
>
> I would *love* a summary of that discussion, especially since it got
> pretty unwieldy (and partially out of hand, but that part probably does
> not need a lot of detail apart from the adjective "heated").
>
>> > a lot of that discussion occurred prior to git-merge (tho it's been
>> > ongoing since then?).
>>
>> If you want to take the latest discussions into account, the summary
>> could be either split into two parts, one for this edition and the
>> other one for the next edition. Or we could wait and have the whole
>> summary in the next edition.
>
> Jake, I do not know about your availability, but I would love it if you
> could take a stab, as I trust you to be unbiased. I would not trust myself
> to be unbiased because (as everybody saw who cared to read) I got a little
> bit too emotional and should have stayed more professional.
>
> Thanks,
> Dscho

> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 2:02 AM, Johannes Schindelin
> <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> > Jake, I do not know about your availability, but I would love it if
> > you could take a stab, as I trust you to be unbiased. I would not
> > trust myself to be unbiased because (as everybody saw who cared to
> > read) I got a little bit too emotional and should have stayed more
> > professional.
> 
> I hope to be able to make a summary of the discussion as best I can.
> It may take a bit as there is a lot of mails to read. I agree that a
> good summary should come from someone outside the discussion to reduce
> emotional bias.