Hi Jim, On 15 Nov 2011, at 19:02, Jim Meyering wrote: > Gary V. Vaughan wrote: >> On 15 Nov 2011, at 18:14, Jim Meyering wrote: >>> Gary V. Vaughan wrote: >>>> I think 'Copyright-paper-required: No' is still the best compromise here >>>> for > ... >>> This is setting FSF policy, >> >> Well, the policy is already set very clearly... >> >> From http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Legally-Significant > > That part is not in question. > > The syntax you are proposing would set policy for > GNU projects that use gitlog-to-changelog.
Not at all. It would set a precedent for sure, and it enables other projects to track '(tiny change)' annotations in git logs in accordance with the maintainer guidelines - but does not by any means set anything in stone... many GNU projects don't even use git after all. >>> For example, I have a slight preference >>> for a semantically positive tag like "Copyright-paperwork-exempt:". >> >> That seems fine to me too. >> >> Rather than stalling, what's the next step to keep things in motion? > > Propose a patch to maintain.texi. I don't want to get into a debate over the merits of generated ChangeLogs with RMS, which I already know he doesn't like. So never mind this second patch, I'll just keep it in the gl/build-aux/gitlog-to-changelog.diff of my projects. Any other project that likes it can find a copy there, or in the bug-gnulib archives. (Although I still think that if you use gitlog-to-changelog to generate all your ChangeLogs without tracking and correctly generating the '(tiny change)' annotations somehow, then you're not respecting the maintainer guidelines on ChangeLog entries.) How about pushing the multi-author patch? Cheers, -- Gary V. Vaughan (gary AT gnu DOT org)
