From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Promoting Git developers Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 18:31:31 -0400 Message-ID: <20150312223131.GA24492@peff.net> References: <54FDA6B5.8050505@drmicha.warpmail.net> <20150311073129.GA5947@peff.net> <20150311075429.GA10300@peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: "Jason St. John" , Christian Couder , Michael J Gruber , David Kastrup , git To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Mar 12 23:31:41 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YWBdj-0003AD-4A for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 23:31:39 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753493AbbCLWbf (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2015 18:31:35 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:60707 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752087AbbCLWbe (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2015 18:31:34 -0400 Received: (qmail 14119 invoked by uid 102); 12 Mar 2015 22:31:33 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 17:31:33 -0500 Received: (qmail 6954 invoked by uid 107); 12 Mar 2015 22:31:43 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 18:31:43 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 12 Mar 2015 18:31:31 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 02:28:03PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > Or something along those lines. The wording and indentation of the > > message could probably use tweaking. And there is a bash-ism in the > > script. :) > > OK, I've updated the Announce script on the 'todo' branch. The > announcement for 2.3.2 I sent out earlier as $gmane/264975 would > have looked like this. Thanks, I think the organization and wording you chose look nice. One minor nit, though: > The latest maintenance release Git v2.3.2 is now available at the > usual places. It comprises of 41 non-merge commits since v2.3.1, > contributed by 19 people, 5 of which are new faces. It's not generally considered correct to use "of" with the active tense of "comprise". So either: It comprises 41 non-merge commits... or: It is comprised of 41 non-merge commits... is fine. The latter is much more common, at least in American English, though I imagine it gives some prescriptivists headaches. > New contributors who made this release possible are as follows. > Welcome to the Git development community! > > Aleksander Boruch-Gruszecki, Aleksey Vasenev, Patrick Steinhardt, > Ryuichi Kokubo, and Tom G. Christensen. I hadn't thought about it when I originally suggested this, but of course "new" is not strictly meaningful in a world with branches. If you contribute a bugfix on top of v2.0.0 that goes to "maint", do you get to be new in v2.0.1 _and_ in v2.2.0? I do not think it matters too much either way in practice, but I guess it would depend on your approach (picking the "old" base manually, or by using all tags prior to the released version). -Peff