Re: Any exceptions for the 15-line rule?

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

> Thanks, `substring' is better than `replace-match' I mentioned. But
> still, should this be considered a full new implementation? Does
> replacing `cond' with `if' in the inner condition make it a new piece of
> code, as opposed to derivative one?

The purpose is just to "simplify" the code, rather than to obscure
the copyright.  In terms of copyright, it does reduce the amount of code
taken, indeed, but it's not a very significant difference.

>> With such cleanups, the patch seems acceptable as a "tiny change".
>> But please do ask for the CA as well (so the use of "tiny change" is
>> mostly a way to avoid having to wait for the CA to go through).
> To be clear, who do I ask to sign the CA over the modified patch? The
> auto-complete-clang author, or the person who looked at a few pieces
> from that package and adapted them to (admittedly, fairly similar)
> company-clang code?

In terms of who owns the copyright, the answer is probably "both", but
to the extent that it fits the "tiny change" criteria we don't need to
care too much (unless one or both of the authors already have
contributed code as a "tiny change" since those things are cumulative).

Assuming that we want company-mode and auto-complete to share more code
in the future, having the assignment of AC's author is a good idea.
As for the person who sent you the patch, it would also make sense to
get his/her assignment if there's a chance he'll contribute more in
the future.


        Stefan

PS: By the way, I think company-backends should be merged with (and/or
moved over to) completion-at-point-functions, and some of those backends
should be moved to their respective major modes.