Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 33

[Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 2:10 AM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> That said, I believe that the gitattributes(5) manpage does an okay
>>> job of covering this and that that thread came to a clear conclusion:
>>>
>>>   https://public-inbox.org/git/20171026203046.fu3z5ngnw7hckfrn@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com/
>>>
>>> I commented at [1] that I found the conclusion of the rev news entry
>>> misleading and confusing but it doesn't appear that there is anything
>>> I can do about that.
>>
>> Well, you could have provided a pull request or otherwise suggested
>> what you think would be a better conclusion for the article and why.
>
> I just re-read the sub-thread Jonathan pointed at, and to me it does
> look like the original request was adequately addressed and talk has
> concluded at around that article.
>
> I somehow was hoping that Jonathan's citing the above URL is a
> suggestion enough for the editors, especially given that the
> announcement for the draft invites a reply to this thread.

DId you also read https://github.com/git/git.github.io/issues/262?

I think I have tried to properly answer Jonathan's feedback there too.
Especially I wrote a pull request with a different conclusion
(https://github.com/git/git.github.io/pull/265) and asked Jonathan if
that was better, but so far got no answer.

>> Perhaps nothing was missed, but as the issue is complex, it is just
>> difficult to explain and summarize it in a good way.
>
> Perhaps you want to take a bit more time between a draft to the
> final publication?  I've often wondered if the time between a draft
> announcement and the release is too short for those who understand
> the discussions on the list well enough to give useful input to help
> editors regurgitate the issues to arrive at a clear summary article.

If it would take a really long time for "those who understand the
discussions on the list well enough to give useful input", can you
imagine how long it would take to write articles in the first place?

I try to write the articles in less than 2 days, so I think 2 days
should also be enough for people to provide useful input on the
articles.
Also I have tried at times to give one more day for people to provide
feedback (or more content) following you suggestion. But when I did
that, I have seen no change in the amount of feedback (or content)
provided.