Thanks. The most important question I would ask you is this: Did you two enjoy writing it? That ends up counting the most, as it affects the quality of the end result (readers would enjoy reading it and feel the love you put into its production), and also its longer term relevance (if it gets to be more burden than enjoyment to you, it won't last). And I hope the answer is a resounding yes ;-) A few comments: - Some might be a bit too detailed. Because each header is a pointer to the list archive, picking only the points that you found are the most thought-provoking may be a good way to shorten it (and readers interested in the topic can follow the link). Another would be to drop the mention like "Junio also reviewed..." that does not say what was said in the review. If a review did not have much thought-provoking value to deserve a summary, perhaps it is enough only to leave it to be discovered by readers who are so interested to follow the link to find the full discussion. - You do not list your own contribution to the discussions, but you should. Of course it would take some discipline to prevent the newsletter from appearing to have a self- promoting agenda, but I think you two are adult enough to be capable of handling that ;-) - 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. - 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. - 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. > Thomas and myself plan to publish this edition on Wednesday the 25th of March. > > We call it an "edition" instead of an "issue" to avoid confusion with > GitHub issues. Good thinking. Thanks again. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html