From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40E6920A40 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 13:41:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751346AbdKUNlV (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Nov 2017 08:41:21 -0500 Received: from mail-io0-f175.google.com ([209.85.223.175]:40049 "EHLO mail-io0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751115AbdKUNlT (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Nov 2017 08:41:19 -0500 Received: by mail-io0-f175.google.com with SMTP id d123so3388056iog.7 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 05:41:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3G1KAVXUpt8iMOcUQ0yR7uhD9MV9SoqfZ7EjgjuaTe8=; b=QK9rRprqFtlA4vWI0Dqb8TzVqYX+E3mV5nKwcQOKVGiT/jb+5+lxmMQ5Toe2yqwl9O 3IhGb3NemD8V8I5q27FxY7DF4nAaAM813lUph/FRFqGbJ0+vc6hTKv9FbLCw/jTljb/C M0pMukztrChvLmJbskGZ8VO2kvCALoUcvcCHyliM4MQzu2BAo9N3TxC7wavAhCXrR6lm GlZjjGMcBI04ZznIXo+B7/g79+1faEKINhAQJhjCahkYf/uLZLmG79/OuXVZFt77umou rhsN8awWocT1eYiRFhFIaimg/sBzX1thaE7s57j594rnZ+UNvzfyIzLtY+NUbkBpb+ym ffyQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3G1KAVXUpt8iMOcUQ0yR7uhD9MV9SoqfZ7EjgjuaTe8=; b=F8zl+vBkor4bnUAqMuBoXv4QOdNeY9TtM4pDyoQAMYh7VCewiczT4ilZ42/6kG1BPI WMEa7iLk/lAYLoOYJAENQ7415GtWulm0+MKjzU+0MckANq+0jDsmf3ra3bsq1l2tNDsl osU/ckXHa1pQ8bBhZ0EDHrMpo55DnBGy4EAXKcgZRXEZsIPq0Ua+YTa5yutWiuRFZ4Nh 5u++gLo5aEeXoPPNqTjBVjksgFtq74Xl+1SUsRsmwewf5b0JN+/Co+xyxv2kIWl/ueHM V7OVOKiHuCSWYH2Y1TQgrPZMdevFdy994p6ljp//W3UwN/mqXoeYh8ZJQ6PnrB7NibBH zFTg== X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX5lQsu6xbR2U2V9gvIMfmARt/ld+FeFvpZkQ8DKtCNUVUn3bz1b LW0jXM+W4w8oz5DpSSd9U2O5z1q/guCsHHe2JDI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMa9cfgfqsO3N/mWCd7K4HNkpjBprrpCWWbpzTGTDVChQsvCgYi1+T44aQg3rMICUsBKNVa+C0vRJQ8NFQmM3Rw= X-Received: by 10.107.47.234 with SMTP id v103mr9729882iov.96.1511271678875; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 05:41:18 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.79.28.137 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 05:41:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20171121011017.e2aac53zfo2n2whc@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com> From: Christian Couder Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:41:18 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 33 To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Jonathan Nieder , Yubin Ruan , git , Thomas Ferris Nicolaisen , Jakub Narebski , Markus Jansen , Jeff King , Johannes Schindelin , Stefan Beller , =?UTF-8?B?0J7Qu9GPINCi0LXQu9C10LbQvdCw0Y8=?= , Johannes Sixt , =?UTF-8?Q?Torsten_B=C3=B6gershausen?= , Lars Schneider , Jacob Keller , Phillip Wood , Ross Kabus , Henry Kleynhans , Charles Bailey , Thomas Gummerer Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Christian Couder writes: > >> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 2:10 AM, Jonathan Nieder 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.