Any comment about upcoming Git Rev News edition 3

[chriscool]

A currently mostly empty draft is there:

https://github.com/git/git.github.io/blob/master/rev_news/drafts/edition-3.md

feel free to comment in this issue, or to use the edit button (that looks like a pen) to edit and create a pull request with the changes you would like.

Thanks!

cc @tfnico @durdn

[tfnico]

@chriscool Thanks for initiating. Perhaps we should piece together a little script that does this for us, using Hub or something.

Should we set a publishing date? As my own goals, I would love to have traffic analysis (#57) and improve the archive page somewhat (#45) before we ship ed. 3. We already have 23 subscribers on mailchimp, but I would like to see this improve, and we should send out ed. 2 asap. @durdn do you want to do that?

[chriscool]

@tfnico yeah I could write a shell to help us do that, I will see next time if I can come up with something.

Aboout the next publishing date, let's aim for the beginning of May, for example the 6th.
And yeah we should try to improve the archive page.

@durdn about mailchimp, yeah it would be nice if you could do it.

Thanks!

[chriscool]

@tfnico a link from linux.com:

http://www.linux.com/news/featured-blogs/200-libby-clark/825032-7-pro-tips-for-using-git-from-fedora-developers

[tfnico]

@chriscool already got it in my inbox [1] :)

[1] https://delicious.com/tfnico/git-rev-news

[chriscool]

As discussed by email the publishing date will be the 13th of May:

d8d63ae

[gitster]

As you may already know, 2.4.0 has been tagged.

[chriscool]

@gitster yeah thanks, @tfnico already put something into the Release section about it.

[chriscool]

Ok, I think I am done with writing articles for this edition.

@emmajane @peff @gitster @tfnico @durdn, you might want to have a look at the draft:

https://github.com/git/git.github.io/blob/master/rev_news/drafts/edition-3.md

before I send an email to the mailing list tomorrow to tell about the draft and ask for contributions.

Thanks!

[gitster]

There are headers for empty sections, which was somewhat embarrasing in previous edition, and I thought you guys were going to start these headers commented out (and then drop the comment when the contents are added to them) to avoid the mistake. Any progress?

[chriscool]

@gitster I plan to comment out headers for empty sections in the next edition (edition 4) and to remove the empty headers before sending the email about the draft tomorrow.

[chriscool]

@gitster thanks for 3f36b5b!
I hope you are ok with how the items you added are now.

[gitster]

Looking good.

I think "half baked" should be explicitly double-quoted, or even done this way:

Peff talked a bit about some "half baked ideas" (Peff's words) he has ...

It is OK for Peff to use that phrase to describe his ideas in a self-derogatory way, but it is not appropriate for you to use in your writing as an interested third-party, unless you do want to stress "Yes, this writer does think that these are half-baked ideas", which I do not think it is the case.

[chriscool]

@gitster @peff ok thanks and sorry about that.
I commited 727b2a0 that hopefully should correctly fix that.

[peff]

I think it is OK post- 727b2a0, but if you want to go into more detail, it is really "half-baked" as in "these are things I thought of but haven't looked into". IOW, a starting point for discussion. Not "half-baked" in the sense of "these are bad ideas that can never be fully baked".

[Cogito]

Not much to comment except that a proof read didn't turn up any significant grammatical or formatting errors. The content was interesting and pretty clean to follow.

Something that might be worth considering is including a slightly longer summary at the start about what is going to be covered. I don't know if a table of contents is warranted, but a slightly longer introduction would help give a feel for what is covered in the edition.

[chriscool]

@Cogito thanks for reviewing and for your feedback!

I think @tfnico had a plan to add a table of content at the top and I am ok with that, as long as it is not too long.

[chriscool]

Yeah, issue #44 is Show table of contents in each Rev News post

[Cogito]

I actually think a full on table of contents might be overkill, but would depend on how much content you have.

Simply expanding the second paragraph

This edition still covers Git's 10th year of existence, as well as the Git Merge conference held on April 8th & 9th in Paris, France, and also some discussions since the end of March.

would make sure more people read through to find something that caught their attention. Would be useful even with a ToC.

[chriscool]

@Cogito do you have an example of what we could add to this paragraph?
You mean something like:

This edition still covers Git's 10th year of existence, as well as the Git Merge conference held on April 8th & 9th in Paris, France, and also some discussions about gitk, NO_IPV6 config option, help, notes, cat-file and ls-files commands, since the end of March.

[Cogito]

No examples spring to mind, but here is my attempt:

This edition includes articles from the Git Merge conference recently held in Paris, France, updates from the Google Summer of Code, and some interesting discussions from the git development community.
Read how Emma Jane Hogbin Westby uses andragogy to help teach git to adults, how issues with building git with NO_IPV6 were resolved, how Joey Hess has been wrangling git ls-files while working on git-annex, and much more!
Enjoy reading and make sure you let us know what you think.

I through in a few different ideas there, so feel free to mangle it as you see fit.

It seems like there isn't actually any content around the 10th anniversary, so I removed the reference to it, is that right?

Might be a cool idea to get a small update from the GSoC students and mentors, either for this edition or future ones.

[chriscool]

About the GSoC it is still in the "Community bonding" period (April 27 - May 25), so it looks a bit early for an update (and there is an Event already about it in this edition).

And yeah it might be a good idea to remove "Git's 10th year of existence". About the rest, I am not sure, I think it might annoy people who would read it all anyway, as it looks a bit like self advertising.

As I wrote in issue #59 (Improve the top of the newsletter) many other good publications like LWN.net have not much meta content at the top. And if we also add a table of content my opinion is that it will be too much.

[mhagger]

I wrote a blog post about the 2.4 release for the GitHub blog. It doesn't include any GitHub-specific information. Feel free to link to it if you think it adds to your coverage of the release. Or not, as you think appropriate.

[tfnico]

Ah, I already saw and enjoyed reading that article, Michael, and I planned
to add it to the list but forgot. Will do so tonight. Thanks!

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Michael Haggerty [email protected]
wrote:

I wrote a blog post about the 2.4 release
https://github.com/blog/1994-git-2-4-atomic-pushes-push-to-deploy-and-more
for the GitHub blog. It doesn't include any GitHub-specific information.
Feel free to link to it if you think it adds to your coverage of the
release. Or not, as you think appropriate.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#56 (comment).

[tfnico]

OK, I'm done with my bits (links & releases) now.

[chriscool]

@tfnico it looks great, thanks!

[gitster]

@chriscool Regarding GSoC students, this year's crop has started interacting with the community much much earlier than the ones from previous years, and both have already achieved the full community member status, I would say. It might be a good idea to start the "spotlight on developer" series with them as first stars, perhaps in the next issue.

[chriscool]

@gitster I am ok with that.
@tfnico have you already planned to start the "spotlight on developer" series?

[tfnico]

@chriscool Nope, I haven't done anything concrete there.

[chriscool]

@tfnico I tried to publish edition-3 as usual by copying files but something is broken...

[tfnico]

@chriscool Looking..

[chriscool]

Ok I fixed it.

[tfnico]

@chriscool OK, just conflicted with your fix when I was about to push :)

[chriscool]

Yeah, sorry I should have looked more closely myself before posting here.

[tfnico]

@chriscool No worries! Thanks for shipping the edition 🚢

[tfnico]

@chriscool I see that the editions are all duplicated under https://github.com/git/git.github.io/tree/master/rev_news

I only put the first duplicate there to maintain the old URL for the first edition. The 2nd and 3rd editions there are hopefully not being linked to by anybody, and can be removed. OK?

[Cogito]

@chriscool just noted that the reference to the anniversary is still in, but it doesn't look like there is any content about it?

Regardless, congrats everyone on another edition!

[chriscool]

@Cogito yeah sorry I wanted to do it, but didn't do it right away, and then forgot...
Thanks!

[chriscool]

Let's close this as the edition has been released some time ago now.