From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Any exceptions for the 15-line rule? Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 09:28:25 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87d2tgu0ad.fsf@yandex.ru> <871u9wyxaz.fsf@yandex.ru> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1367069308 27430 80.91.229.3 (27 Apr 2013 13:28:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:28:28 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Apr 27 15:28:32 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UW5B1-0002wM-Pn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 15:28:31 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48102 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UW5B1-000146-CV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 09:28:31 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:58525) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UW5Ax-000141-JB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 09:28:29 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UW5Aw-0006ZN-NZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 09:28:27 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.182]:38148) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UW5Aw-0006ZG-Jd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 09:28:26 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EABK/CFFFpYYW/2dsb2JhbABEvw4Xc4IeAQEEAVYjBQsLDiYSFBgNJIgeBsEtkQoDpHqBXoMT X-IPAS-Result: Av4EABK/CFFFpYYW/2dsb2JhbABEvw4Xc4IeAQEEAVYjBQsLDiYSFBgNJIgeBsEtkQoDpHqBXoMT X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,565,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="8788729" Original-Received: from 69-165-134-22.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([69.165.134.22]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 27 Apr 2013 09:28:21 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 5B9B563364; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 09:28:25 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <871u9wyxaz.fsf@yandex.ru> (Dmitry Gutov's message of "Sat, 27 Apr 2013 16:26:12 +0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 206.248.154.182 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:159183 Archived-At: > 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.