Michael J Gruber <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Maybe a matter of taste, but I think in general we could do with a bit > less of "narrating" and more of "summarizing". True. > Just as an example, in the section on "visualizing merge diffs after the > fact", few people will be interested in the detail that I pointed out > the "--merges" option of rev-list to Dscho. While that recollection is > true and everything on the git-ml is public, I consider "Git Rev News" > to be "more public", targetted to a wider audience than the regulars. > They don't all know how much Git owes to Dscho. If things like this end > up in the news it makes me ponder for each on-list reply whether I'd > rather reply in private. Maybe I'm being overly sensitive (though not > affected in this case), but I just feel there are different degrees of > "public". I do not see "Michael pointed out that there was a slightly better way to do that" as saying anything bad about his contribution. I however do agree with you that we want to see the newsletter aim to summarize things better. Instead of saying "Dscho suggested X, Michael then refined it to Y", with full details of what X and Y looked like, it would be more appropriate for the target audience to say "Dscho and Michael worked together to come up with a solution Y". -- 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