Hi,
A draft of Git Rev News edition 1 is available here:
https://github.com/git/git.github.io/blob/master/rev_news/draft/edition-1.md
Everyone is welcome to contribute in any section either by editing the
above page on GitHub and sending a pull request, or by commenting on
this GitHub issue
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 12:21 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
I've seen
David Kastrup (dak at gnu.org) previously reimplemented significant
parts of git blame for a vast gain in performance with complex
histories and large files. As working on free software is his sole
Christian Couder christian.cou...@gmail.com writes:
Hi,
A draft of Git Rev News edition 1 is available here:
https://github.com/git/git.github.io/blob/master/rev_news/draft/edition-1.md
Everyone is welcome to contribute in any section either by editing the
above page on GitHub and sending
Thanks.
The most important question I would ask you is this:
Did you two enjoy writing it?
That ends up counting the most, as it affects the quality of the
end result (readers would enjoy reading it and feel the love you
put into its production), and also its longer term relevance (if it
gets
Thomas Ferris Nicolaisen tfn...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 12:21 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
David Kastrup (dak at gnu.org) previously reimplemented significant
parts of git blame for a vast gain in performance with complex
histories and large files. As
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 12:21 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
David Kastrup (dak at gnu.org) previously reimplemented significant
parts of git blame for a vast gain in performance with complex
histories and large files. As working on free software is his sole
source of
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com 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
Thomas Ferris Nicolaisen tfn...@gmail.com writes:
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
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 5:49 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Thomas Ferris Nicolaisen tfn...@gmail.com writes:
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
9 matches
Mail list logo
