On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> 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! -- 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