I find the gifs make the text around them far harder to focus on. I'd much prefer they only played on click or hover.
I'm actually surprised that the browsers don't have gif playback controls by now.
Until relatively recently. You could stop gif animations on a page in firefox. They removed the functionality, citing bloat, and suggested someone write an extension.
Shortly after, they integrated Pocket and Hello and broke the extension apis that would have made a gif control extension easy.
This is great and all, but do status bars and terminal colorings really warrant this kind of fanfare? I love git and I'm very happy that they are constantly releasing new stuff, but I think we should draw a line somewhere on what really matters and what doesn't as far as news coverage.
The news is on github, it specialises in everything git and on the git subject they can choose to shine the light wherever and it will not be out-of-place.
Maybe you could limit the criticism to the fact that it has been submitted to HN and voted onto the front page, which would be a criticism of distribution medium and of the medium consuming masses.
Meta: Beautifully written release summary, including hyperlinks and animated gif "demos". Inspirational for our own releases :-)
Nice formatting aside, I am slightly concerned that GitHub "releasing a release note" for Git would further blur the distinction between the two for new programmers. If I were new to Git and GitHub, I would have thought that Git is a product of the company GitHub. Edit: After searching through git repo and official site, I could not find any nicely "rendered" release note beyond the official release note in raw markd…
I recently participated in a focus group which was discussing git, github, and other git-ish things. To my eyes, it seemed like most of the other participants were unclear on what the difference between git and github actually was as answers about the two were often interchanged.