From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Chong Yidong Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.diffs Subject: Re: [Emacs-diffs] Changes to emacs/lisp/ChangeLog.7,v Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:45:45 -0400 Message-ID: <873b40q2cm.fsf@stupidchicken.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1174344395 2831 80.91.229.12 (19 Mar 2007 22:46:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:46:35 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, emacs-diffs@gnu.org To: "Juanma Barranquero" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 19 23:46:27 2007 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 1HTQcT-00026R-N9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 23:46:26 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HTQdy-00047q-4K for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 17:47:58 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HTQdY-0003DC-Tt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:47:32 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HTQdY-0003Bv-5d; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 17:47:32 -0500 Original-Received: from south-station-annex.mit.edu ([18.72.1.2]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HTQc2-0002pc-Sn; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:45:59 -0400 Original-Received: from grand-central-station.mit.edu (GRAND-CENTRAL-STATION.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.82]) by south-station-annex.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.9.2) with ESMTP id l2JMjt3E028108; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 17:45:56 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from outgoing-legacy.mit.edu (OUTGOING-LEGACY.MIT.EDU [18.7.22.104]) by grand-central-station.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.9.2) with ESMTP id l2JMjkVF008637; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:45:46 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from localhost ([18.19.7.211]) ) by outgoing-legacy.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.12.4) with ESMTP id l2JMjjmK024082; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:45:45 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from cyd by localhost with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1HTQbp-00068g-00; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:45:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Juanma Barranquero's message of "Mon\, 19 Mar 2007 22\:55\:44 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.95 (gnu/linux) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.42 X-Spam-Score: 1 X-detected-kernel: Solaris 9.1 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:68129 gmane.emacs.diffs:59384 Archived-At: "Juanma Barranquero" writes: >> -1998-06-03 Kevin Rodgers >> +1998-06-03 Kevin Rodgers (tiny change) > > What's the point of these changes? Kevin Rodgers appears 30 times in > lisp/ChangeLog*, src/ChangeLog* and etc/ChangeLog. Even if every one > of them is tiny, the total surely surpasses the amount of code allowed > without signing papers, doesn't it? Or am I missing something? The situation is this: Kevin Rodgers has only signed papers for vc and ps-print, and RMS hasn't been able to get into contact with him. The changes I made were for keeping track of which of the changes he made are tiny, so we can tell where the situation stands. The tiny changes, I think, are OK: my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that thirty or so tiny changes is pushing the limits for requiring papers, but still acceptable. The main trouble, as it turns out, is a handful of non-trivial changes he contributed to compile.el nearly ten years ago (in ChangeLog.5 and ChangeLog.7). Reverting these will be all but impossible. I don't know how this can be resolved. Under these circumstances, I'd suggest relaxing the usual policy of strictly requiring copyright assignments; the chance of any legal difficulty arising from his contributions is surely vanishingly small.