On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. I think sometimes the details might be interesting for different reasons. >> 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. On the contrary I think that the way Dscho used sed shows some cli proficiency and might be interesting to some people. > 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". With the details, I think readers are more likely to remember the --merges option. -- 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