Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 1

On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

Thanks.

The most important question I would ask you is this:

Did you two enjoy writing it?

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.

 - 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.

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.

 - 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.

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

 - 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.

Thanks for the feedback!