[bug#47086] [PATCH] gnu: tig: Update to 2.5.3.

[bug#47086] [PATCH] gnu: tig: Update to 2.5.3.

[jgart via Guix-patches via]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 106 bytes --]

Hi Guix!

Here is an update to tig.

all the best,

jgart

libremiami.org
search.libremiami.org

[-- Attachment #2: 0001-gnu-tig-Update-to-2.5.3.patch --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 1708 bytes --]

From ab371a326536a91f7e1caa288e25a9a0818e2b7b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: LibreMiami <packaging-guix@libremiami.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 23:49:11 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] gnu: tig: Update to 2.5.3.

* gnu/packages/version-control.scm (tig): Update to 2.5.3.

Co-authored-by: jgart <jgart@dismail.de>
Co-authored-by: donotshake <donotshake:matrix.org>
---
 gnu/packages/version-control.scm | 5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gnu/packages/version-control.scm b/gnu/packages/version-control.scm
index d85b5352fa..677b2f5322 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/version-control.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/version-control.scm
@@ -36,6 +36,7 @@
 ;;; Copyright © 2021 Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com>
 ;;; Copyright © 2021 Chris Marusich <cmmarusich@gmail.com>
 ;;; Copyright © 2021 Léo Le Bouter <lle-bout@zaclys.net>
+;;; Copyright © 2021 LibreMiami <packaging-guix@libremiami.org>
 ;;;
 ;;; This file is part of GNU Guix.
 ;;;
@@ -2196,7 +2197,7 @@ from Subversion to any supported Distributed Version Control System (DVCS).")
 (define-public tig
   (package
     (name "tig")
-    (version "2.5.1")
+    (version "2.5.3")
     (source (origin
               (method url-fetch)
               (uri (string-append
@@ -2204,7 +2205,7 @@ from Subversion to any supported Distributed Version Control System (DVCS).")
                     version "/tig-" version ".tar.gz"))
               (sha256
                (base32
-                "0r4y9hyvpkplaxrzslws3asz652d83qh3bjwvmp8assga8s5s3ah"))))
+                "1p1575yh4daxjifywxkd0hgyfwciylqcm2qakawvwn6mk620ca75"))))
     (build-system gnu-build-system)
     (native-inputs
      `(("asciidoc" ,asciidoc)
-- 
2.30.2

[bug#47086] [PATCH] gnu: tig: Update to 2.5.3.

[zimoun]

Hi,

On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 at 05:06, jgart via Guix-patches via <guix-patches@gnu.org> wrote:

> From: LibreMiami <packaging-guix@libremiami.org>

[...]

> Co-authored-by: jgart <jgart@dismail.de>
> Co-authored-by: donotshake <donotshake:matrix.org>

[...]

> +;;; Copyright © 2021 LibreMiami <packaging-guix@libremiami.org>

Is LibreMiami a person or a «juridical person»?  If not, I am not
convinced LibreMiami can hold the Copyright.

IANAL, the commit author is fine to be <your-imagination-is-the-limit>
but the Copyright needs to be a legal person and cannot be an informal
group.  Or I do not see the reason of these Copyright lines header.

It is also the case for 387cac30bc4161055aba0c51e798a440f44592c2 adding
the package ’t’ (then renamed) and
3b2d7ada40db66439ce3d285960208687d79b421 tweaking the package mumble.


Cheers,
simon

PS: I agree that there is similar with copyrights hold by «nickname»
(~10), in my understanding, it does not make sense either, even if IANAL
again.  Well, nickname is another story I guess.

[bug#47086] [PATCH] gnu: tig: Update to 2.5.3.

[jgart via Guix-patches via]

> Is LibreMiami a person or a «juridical person»?

Hi zimoun,

Yes, LibreMiami is a juridical person. We are a legal entity that commits and works on packaging software together.

> It is also the case for 387cac30bc4161055aba0c51e798a440f44592c2 adding
> the package ’t’ (then renamed) and ...

#46969 and go-github-com-operatorfoundation-ed25519 (a2ece4da1fdccb9e94681e38a3f3a79b0d43e061) are other examples too.

We host a package meetup every month. If you're available, we'd love to meet you and work on something together, also.

best regards,

jgart

libremiami.org
search.libremiami.org
mumble.libremiami.org
events.libremiami.org

March 12, 2021 4:14 AM, "zimoun" <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 at 05:06, jgart via Guix-patches via <guix-patches@gnu.org> wrote:
> 
>> From: LibreMiami <packaging-guix@libremiami.org>
> 
> [...]
> 
>> Co-authored-by: jgart <jgart@dismail.de>
>> Co-authored-by: donotshake <donotshake:matrix.org>
> 
> [...]
> 
>> +;;; Copyright © 2021 LibreMiami <packaging-guix@libremiami.org>
> 
> Is LibreMiami a person or a «juridical person»? If not, I am not
> convinced LibreMiami can hold the Copyright.
> 
> IANAL, the commit author is fine to be <your-imagination-is-the-limit>
> but the Copyright needs to be a legal person and cannot be an informal
> group. Or I do not see the reason of these Copyright lines header.
> 
> It is also the case for 387cac30bc4161055aba0c51e798a440f44592c2 adding
> the package ’t’ (then renamed) and
> 3b2d7ada40db66439ce3d285960208687d79b421 tweaking the package mumble.
> 
> Cheers,
> simon
> 
> PS: I agree that there is similar with copyrights hold by «nickname»
> (~10), in my understanding, it does not make sense either, even if IANAL
> again. Well, nickname is another story I guess.

[bug#47086] [PATCH] gnu: tig: Update to 2.5.3.

[zimoun]

Hi,

On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 at 11:42, "jgart" <jgart@dismail.de> wrote:

>> Is LibreMiami a person or a «juridical person»?

> Yes, LibreMiami is a juridical person. We are a legal entity that
> commits and works on packaging software together.

Thanks for the clarification.  I still think it is a bad idea that
LibreMiami holds the Copyright instead of people who effectively did the
work.  That’s my point of view.


>> It is also the case for 387cac30bc4161055aba0c51e798a440f44592c2 adding
>> the package ’t’ (then renamed) and ...
>
> #46969 and go-github-com-operatorfoundation-ed25519
> (a2ece4da1fdccb9e94681e38a3f3a79b0d43e061) are other examples too.

If I read correctly, this commit a2ece4 does not lead to a Copyright
assignment.  So it’s fine.  Even, I find really cool that 6 people
co-authored a patch during a meetup.

> We host a package meetup every month. If you're available, we'd love
> to meet you and work on something together, also. 

This is really cool!  Great initiative.  Maybe I will show up. :-)

My point is just about the holder of the Copyright.  Concretely, to be
correct legally speaking, IIUC, the co-authors (of the 2 commits and
this patch) signed a copyright transfer to the LibreMiami entity.
Otherwise, the copyright does not belong to LibreMiami.


Cheers,
simon

[bug#47086] [PATCH] gnu: tig: Update to 2.5.3.

[jgart via Guix-patches via]

Hi zimoun,

Thank you for your interest.

> I still think it is a bad idea that LibreMiami holds the Copyright instead of people who effectively did the
> work. That’s my point of view.

I respect your point of view. We attribute everyone involved in the packaging effort during any given packaging session.

We include a "Co-authored-by: ..." tag in all the commit messages for those involved.

All parties involved are aware of this and also decide whether they want to be included in the commit message or not. Some also prefer anonymity and no copyright claim. We even have a pre-meetup questionnaire that helps facilitate this. 

If you come to one of our meetups and prefer to add your own copyright to the top of the file instead of adding it as a group that is fine by us also. We have a field in the pre-meetup questionnaire where people can indicate what they prefer. 

When I work on a contribution alone I commit with my own name but when I work with LibreMiami I prefer to commit under that entity and include the "Co-authored-by" tag. 

We prefer to commit/work together as a group and that is a convenience for us. LibreMiami just wants to act as a steward of free software and we see guix packaging as a way of realizing that common goal. We'd like to onboard as many guix packagers as possible. We believe persons from all walks of life can update and package software given a bit of practice and orientation. Guix's transparency as a community/technology is a perfect vehical for this cause. 

I hope this clarified things. Feel free to ask more questions and/or chat with us at libremiami:matrix.org.

There is also an xmpp bridge if you prefer xmpp: #libremiami#matrix.org@matrix.org

> This is really cool! Great initiative. Maybe I will show up. :-)

Thank you! Yes, stop by. We'd love to have you. I will be announcing the next guix packaging meetup soon on guix-devel.

> If I read correctly, this commit a2ece4 does not lead to a Copyright
> assignment. So it’s fine. Even, I find really cool that 6 people
> co-authored a patch during a meetup.

I think it is cool also.

all the best,

jgart

libremiami.org
search.libremiami.org
mumble.libremiami.org
stream.libremiami.org

March 12, 2021 7:32 AM, "zimoun" <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 at 11:42, "jgart" <jgart@dismail.de> wrote:
> 
>>> Is LibreMiami a person or a «juridical person»?
>> 
>> Yes, LibreMiami is a juridical person. We are a legal entity that
>> commits and works on packaging software together.
> 
> Thanks for the clarification. I still think it is a bad idea that
> LibreMiami holds the Copyright instead of people who effectively did the
> work. That’s my point of view.
> 
>>> It is also the case for 387cac30bc4161055aba0c51e798a440f44592c2 adding
>>> the package ’t’ (then renamed) and ...
>> 
>> #46969 and go-github-com-operatorfoundation-ed25519
>> (a2ece4da1fdccb9e94681e38a3f3a79b0d43e061) are other examples too.
> 
> If I read correctly, this commit a2ece4 does not lead to a Copyright
> assignment. So it’s fine. Even, I find really cool that 6 people
> co-authored a patch during a meetup.
> 
>> We host a package meetup every month. If you're available, we'd love
>> to meet you and work on something together, also.
> 
> This is really cool! Great initiative. Maybe I will show up. :-)
> 
> My point is just about the holder of the Copyright. Concretely, to be
> correct legally speaking, IIUC, the co-authors (of the 2 commits and
> this patch) signed a copyright transfer to the LibreMiami entity.
> Otherwise, the copyright does not belong to LibreMiami.
> 
> Cheers,
> simon

[bug#47086] [PATCH] gnu: tig: Update to 2.5.3.

[zimoun]

Hi,

On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 at 13:47, "jgart" <jgart@dismail.de> wrote:

> I respect your point of view. We attribute everyone involved in the
> packaging effort during any given packaging session.

It is fine if we disagree. :-) The important was the clarification.
Thank you for that.  Maybe see you on the next meetup.


Cheers,
simon

bug#47086: [PATCH] gnu: tig: Update to 2.5.3.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

"jgart" <jgart@dismail.de> skribis:

> From ab371a326536a91f7e1caa288e25a9a0818e2b7b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: LibreMiami <packaging-guix@libremiami.org>
> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 23:49:11 -0500
> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: tig: Update to 2.5.3.
>
> * gnu/packages/version-control.scm (tig): Update to 2.5.3.
>
> Co-authored-by: jgart <jgart@dismail.de>
> Co-authored-by: donotshake <donotshake:matrix.org>

Applied.

However I agree with zimoun that assigning copyright to LibreMiami is
debatable.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

[bug#47086] [PATCH] gnu: tig: Update to 2.5.3.

[jgart via Guix-patches via]

Hi Ludo and zimoun,

I discussed this further with LibreMiami members and we are thinking about the following solution to
this issue:

We would still author commits as LibreMiami with our group email, packaging-guix@libremiami.org.
All the co-authors would be listed in the commit body, as usual.

LibreMiami would not be mentioned in any copyright statements going forward. Instead, we would add the
copyright statement for each contributor at the top of the file. 

We might have several individuals contributing in one packaging session. Would this pose any issues?

For example, there's a possibility that we might have 10 new contributors in one packaging session and therefore 10 new copyright statements at the top of source code files that might get introduced in that one session alone. 

This was one of the main reasons why we collectively agreed on adding LibreMiami's copyright statement to the top of source code files.

What are your thoughts on this matter? Should I move this to a mailing list discussion?

all the best,

jgart

libremiami.org

March 17, 2021 7:05 AM, "Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> "jgart" <jgart@dismail.de> skribis:
> 
>> From ab371a326536a91f7e1caa288e25a9a0818e2b7b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: LibreMiami <packaging-guix@libremiami.org>
>> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 23:49:11 -0500
>> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: tig: Update to 2.5.3.
>> 
>> * gnu/packages/version-control.scm (tig): Update to 2.5.3.
>> 
>> Co-authored-by: jgart <jgart@dismail.de>
>> Co-authored-by: donotshake <donotshake:matrix.org>
> 
> Applied.
> 
> However I agree with zimoun that assigning copyright to LibreMiami is
> debatable.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ludo’.

[bug#47086] [PATCH] gnu: tig: Update to 2.5.3.

[Efraim Flashner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 986 bytes --]

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 12:05:06PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> "jgart" <jgart@dismail.de> skribis:
> 
> > From ab371a326536a91f7e1caa288e25a9a0818e2b7b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: LibreMiami <packaging-guix@libremiami.org>
> > Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 23:49:11 -0500
> > Subject: [PATCH] gnu: tig: Update to 2.5.3.
> >
> > * gnu/packages/version-control.scm (tig): Update to 2.5.3.
> >
> > Co-authored-by: jgart <jgart@dismail.de>
> > Co-authored-by: donotshake <donotshake:matrix.org>
> 
> Applied.
> 
> However I agree with zimoun that assigning copyright to LibreMiami is
> debatable.
> 

Is it really that different than everyone involved assigning their
copyright to LibreMiami as an aggregator and then sending the patch in?

-- 
Efraim Flashner   <efraim@flashner.co.il>   אפרים פלשנר
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[bug#47086] [PATCH] gnu: tig: Update to 2.5.3.

[jgart via Guix-patches via]

myself:
> We would still author commits as LibreMiami with our group email, packaging-guix@libremiami.org.
> All the co-authors would be listed in the commit body, as usual.
> LibreMiami would not be mentioned in any copyright statements going forward. Instead, we would add the
> copyright statement for each contributor at the top of the file. 
--------------------------------------------------------------
zimoun:
> IANAL, the commit author is fine to be <your-imagination-is-the-limit>
> but the Copyright needs to be a legal person and cannot be an informal
> group. Or I do not see the reason of these Copyright lines header.

Hi Efraim,

If I take zimoun's advice above then my new proposal is indeed different because LibreMiami
is no longer listed in any of the source code under copyright statement headers going forward.

Instead, all those involved in group packaging would list their own copyright declarations in the
respective source code headers.

jgart

March 17, 2021 3:16 PM, "Efraim Flashner" <efraim@flashner.co.il> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 12:05:06PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> "jgart" <jgart@dismail.de> skribis:
>> 
>> From ab371a326536a91f7e1caa288e25a9a0818e2b7b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: LibreMiami <packaging-guix@libremiami.org>
>> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 23:49:11 -0500
>> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: tig: Update to 2.5.3.
>> 
>> * gnu/packages/version-control.scm (tig): Update to 2.5.3.
>> 
>> Co-authored-by: jgart <jgart@dismail.de>
>> Co-authored-by: donotshake <donotshake:matrix.org>
>> 
>> Applied.
>> 
>> However I agree with zimoun that assigning copyright to LibreMiami is
>> debatable.
> 
> Is it really that different than everyone involved assigning their
> copyright to LibreMiami as an aggregator and then sending the patch in?
> 
> --
> Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il> אפרים פלשנר
> GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
> Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted

[bug#47086] [PATCH] gnu: tig: Update to 2.5.3.

[jgart via Guix-patches via]

> Applied.

Thank you for taking the time to review the patch.

all the best,

jgart

March 17, 2021 7:05 AM, "Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> "jgart" <jgart@dismail.de> skribis:
> 
>> From ab371a326536a91f7e1caa288e25a9a0818e2b7b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: LibreMiami <packaging-guix@libremiami.org>
>> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 23:49:11 -0500
>> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: tig: Update to 2.5.3.
>> 
>> * gnu/packages/version-control.scm (tig): Update to 2.5.3.
>> 
>> Co-authored-by: jgart <jgart@dismail.de>
>> Co-authored-by: donotshake <donotshake:matrix.org>
> 

> 
> However I agree with zimoun that assigning copyright to LibreMiami is
> debatable.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ludo’.

[bug#47086] [PATCH] gnu: tig: Update to 2.5.3.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Efraim,

Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il> skribis:

> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 12:05:06PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> "jgart" <jgart@dismail.de> skribis:
>> 
>> > From ab371a326536a91f7e1caa288e25a9a0818e2b7b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> > From: LibreMiami <packaging-guix@libremiami.org>
>> > Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 23:49:11 -0500
>> > Subject: [PATCH] gnu: tig: Update to 2.5.3.
>> >
>> > * gnu/packages/version-control.scm (tig): Update to 2.5.3.
>> >
>> > Co-authored-by: jgart <jgart@dismail.de>
>> > Co-authored-by: donotshake <donotshake:matrix.org>
>> 
>> Applied.
>> 
>> However I agree with zimoun that assigning copyright to LibreMiami is
>> debatable.
>> 
>
> Is it really that different than everyone involved assigning their
> copyright to LibreMiami as an aggregator and then sending the patch in?

IIUC there’s no LibreMiami legal entity, so it’s not possible to assign
copyright to LibreMiami.

Ludo’.

[bug#47086] [PATCH] gnu: tig: Update to 2.5.3.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi!

"jgart" <jgart@dismail.de> skribis:

> I discussed this further with LibreMiami members and we are thinking about the following solution to
> this issue:
>
> We would still author commits as LibreMiami with our group email, packaging-guix@libremiami.org.
> All the co-authors would be listed in the commit body, as usual.
>
> LibreMiami would not be mentioned in any copyright statements going forward. Instead, we would add the
> copyright statement for each contributor at the top of the file. 
>
> We might have several individuals contributing in one packaging session. Would this pose any issues?

Nope, that sounds good!

BTW, note that “trivial” changes (usually considered as “less than 10
lines”; a package update definitely falls into that category) are not
even copyrightable.

> For example, there's a possibility that we might have 10 new contributors in one packaging session and therefore 10 new copyright statements at the top of source code files that might get introduced in that one session alone. 
>
> This was one of the main reasons why we collectively agreed on adding LibreMiami's copyright statement to the top of source code files.
>
> What are your thoughts on this matter? Should I move this to a mailing list discussion?

I see.  If there are literally ten people for each packaging patch you
submit, that could be a lot.

The other option obviously is to register LibreMiami as a non-profit, to
have its members formally assign it copyright on their work, at which
point “copyright LibreMiami” makes perfect sense.

HTH!

Ludo’.

[bug#47086] [PATCH] gnu: tig: Update to 2.5.3.

[jgart via Guix-patches via]

> BTW, note that “trivial” changes (usually considered as “less than 10
> lines”; a package update definitely falls into that category) are not
> even copyrightable.

We'll make sure not to add a copyright for trivial changes. Thank you for clarifying that.

> The other option obviously is to register LibreMiami as a non-profit,

We are in the process of incorporating LibreMiami as a non-profit. Till then, we'll include individual authors on separate lines of the copyright header.  

all the best,

jgart

March 18, 2021 5:48 AM, "Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:

> Hi!
> 
> "jgart" <jgart@dismail.de> skribis:
> 
>> I discussed this further with LibreMiami members and we are thinking about the following solution
>> to
>> this issue:
>> 
>> We would still author commits as LibreMiami with our group email, packaging-guix@libremiami.org.
>> All the co-authors would be listed in the commit body, as usual.
>> 
>> LibreMiami would not be mentioned in any copyright statements going forward. Instead, we would add
>> the
>> copyright statement for each contributor at the top of the file.
>> 
>> We might have several individuals contributing in one packaging session. Would this pose any
>> issues?
> 
> Nope, that sounds good!
> 
> BTW, note that “trivial” changes (usually considered as “less than 10
> lines”; a package update definitely falls into that category) are not
> even copyrightable.
> 
>> For example, there's a possibility that we might have 10 new contributors in one packaging session
>> and therefore 10 new copyright statements at the top of source code files that might get introduced
>> in that one session alone.
>> 
>> This was one of the main reasons why we collectively agreed on adding LibreMiami's copyright
>> statement to the top of source code files.
>> 
>> What are your thoughts on this matter? Should I move this to a mailing list discussion?
> 
> I see. If there are literally ten people for each packaging patch you
> submit, that could be a lot.
> 
> The other option obviously is to register LibreMiami as a non-profit, to
> have its members formally assign it copyright on their work, at which
> point “copyright LibreMiami” makes perfect sense.
> 
> HTH!
> 
> Ludo’.