Re: RFC - Git Developer Blog

[Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com>]

On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 09:20:52AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 06:49:35PM -0700, Emily Shaffer wrote:
> 
> > Are folks interested in writing and reviewing this kind of content? Any
> > ideas for where we may be able to host (maybe git-scm)?
> 
> I think it would make sense to have blog.git-scm.com (and .org) with
> this content. I'd be happy to deal with the technical side of setting
> the name up. I think it should live in a different repository than the
> main site, though (which is an overly-messy Rails app).

I'd certainly be happy with that setup if others agree, although the
incorporation with Git Rev News sounds interesting too (I'll reply to
that post also).

> 
> There actually used to be a blog section on the site. It discussed
> various high-level concepts that hadn't made it into the Pro Git book
> (whose content makes up most of the site). But as most of those were
> eventually added to the book, the blog posts became staler versions of
> the same content, and we dropped them.
> 
> Just to play devil's advocate for a moment: another venue for topics
> like these:
> 
> >  - Using `git worktree` Effectively
> >  - Overview of the Git Object Store
> >  - Finding Regressions with `git bisect`
> >  - Life of a Git Remote Request
> 
> might be to actually add them to the book (which started as a
> single-author publication, but is CC-licensed and has taken lots of
> community content over the years). The advantage there is that the book
> content would always represent the most up-to-date coverage of those
> topics, whereas blog posts sometimes grow stale over the years as nobody
> is interested in updating them.

To advocate your advocate, does the book content really stay so
up-to-date? (I have no experience with that repo, so I really don't
know.) An advantage of blog posts is that they come with a date and so
users can judge for themselves how stale it is or is not. In fact I
think it'd be odd to see reviews to update a blog post that's a few
years old; if the content is so different I'd expect to see a brand new
post and an editor's note on the top of the old one pointing forward, or
at least marking it as obsolete.

If it's a concept that's so specific that it really will stale out
quickly (e.g. exactly how to use git worktree down to the commands
without much context) vs. a higher level concept (how does git worktree
work and conceptually how do you use it) then it probably does belong in
the manpage or book. But I suppose I envision these types of posts doing
the latter, instead. Hmmmmm.

Maybe it's enough to say during review, "This seems like a good
candidate to move to manual/tutorial/git-scm book".

> 
> One downside is that it may be more annoying to try to integrate content
> into the existing structure of the book. Another is that a blog is
> something people subscribe to, so a post may generate attention/interest
> in a topic (but nobody wants to see a feed of book updates!). A prime
> example is something like a highlight of features after a new release,
> which is not book content at all, and just serves to generate attention.
> :)
> 
> So I don't think I'm really seriously suggesting this as an alternative,
> but maybe something to ponder.
> 
> > It could make sense to review contributions like this on the mailing
> > list, so that we get the attention of those who wrote the features
> > that are being covered in the blog posts - are we okay with the
> > additional traffic?
> 
> Additional traffic is fine. I do suspect that blog posts in particular
> would benefit from a more integrated review system like GitHub (or
> similar):
> 
>   - I'd expect there to be a lot of images, and those systems make
>     image diffs easy to see
> 
>   - the formatted output is going to be important to review; a
>     browser-based review system makes it easier to see the formatted
>     output (especially if they're written in markdown)
> 
>   - we're more likely to get/want drive-by fixes like typo corrections,
>     so reducing friction for non-regular contributors is more important
> 
> Obviously you can apply many of the same mailing list vs web review
> arguments that we've already had for writing Git itself (e.g., is
> reviewing formatted output much different than looking at the output of
> a compiled program?). But I think the nature of blog posts pushes it a
> bit further towards web-based review.

I follow, especially re formatted output and images, but I also don't
want to provide too much distance between the ML and these kinds of
posts. I wonder if it makes sense to mandate use of GitGitGadget, and
accept review comments both on the ML and the PR?

> 
> -Peff