Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 5

[Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>]

Hi,

On 2015-07-08 12:29, Christian Couder wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:
>>
>>> Just as an example, in the section on "visualizing merge diffs after the
>>> fact", few people will be interested in the detail that I pointed out
>>> the "--merges" option of rev-list to Dscho. While that recollection is
>>> true and everything on the git-ml is public, I consider "Git Rev News"
>>> to be "more public", targetted to a wider audience than the regulars.
>>> They don't all know how much Git owes to Dscho. If things like this end
>>> up in the news it makes me ponder for each on-list reply whether I'd
>>> rather reply in private. Maybe I'm being overly sensitive (though not
>>> affected in this case), but I just feel there are different degrees of
>>> "public".
>>
>> I do not see "Michael pointed out that there was a slightly better
>> way to do that" as saying anything bad about his contribution.
> 
> On the contrary I think that the way Dscho used sed shows some cli
> proficiency and might be interesting to some people.

Just for the record: I was really happy to learn about the --merges option. Also: I have not the faintest problem to demonstrate lack of knowledge publicly. It was kind of flattering to hear that my contributions to Git are appreciated, though ;-)

>> I however do agree with you that we want to see the newsletter aim
>> to summarize things better.  Instead of saying "Dscho suggested X,
>> Michael then refined it to Y", with full details of what X and Y
>> looked like, it would be more appropriate for the target audience to
>> say "Dscho and Michael worked together to come up with a solution
>> Y".
> 
> With the details, I think readers are more likely to remember the
> --merges option.

Yep, people remember things better when there is some story behind that they can relate to.

Ciao,
Dscho