Hi, Christian Couder wrote: > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 2:10 AM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >> >> 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. > > If you just say that the above email is the conclusion, when it seems > to me that another email from someone else is also a conclusion with a > quite different outcome, it does not help much come to an agreement > about what should be reported as the conclusion of the thread. This is something I suspect journalists have to deal with all the time: when one of the subjects of an article feels misrepresented (which happens inevitably when writing to a deadline), that comes with a feeling of powerlessness that can lead to grumpiness and harsh words. In the end you ended up improving the text enough that I don't mind any more. Sorry for the bumpy road along the way. Thanks, Jonathan
