From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Submission of Matrix Kronecker Product for calc Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 01:29:05 -0500 Message-ID: References: <85hcfk6cxo.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1204957760 8121 80.91.229.12 (8 Mar 2008 06:29:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 06:29:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: jay.p.belanger@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Glenn Morris Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 08 07:29:47 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JXsZ0-0004BZ-N8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2008 07:29:47 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JXsYS-0004wv-Qb for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2008 01:29:12 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JXsYO-0004ul-C6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2008 01:29:08 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JXsYM-0004tw-TD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2008 01:29:08 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JXsYM-0004ti-P1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2008 01:29:06 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JXsYM-0006lc-Cr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2008 01:29:06 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1JXsYL-0003hZ-O9; Sat, 08 Mar 2008 01:29:05 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from Glenn Morris on Fri, 07 Mar 2008 13:56:59 -0500) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:91703 Archived-At: Isn't there something to be said for: i) assuming that contributors will want to continue contributing; and ii) trying to minimize the number of pieces of paper people have to sign? If someone thinks he may want to contribute more then he might prefer to sign the future assignment. The form for disclaimers mentions this option. I've always offered assign-past-and-future for the whole of Emacs as a default option to contributors, no matter how much they contribute initially. Should I stop doing this? Is there some reason to actually _prefer_ a disclaimer for smaller changes? The disclaimer is not better for us, but it is smaller and simpler so some contributors may prefer it. That seems like a reason to suggest both options, in the case of a medium contribution from someone who may not want to contribute more. request-disclaim.changes does that.