Hi Nicolas, Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
> Bastien <b...@gnu.org> writes: > >> My point is that distinguishing trivial vs. non-trivial parts of a >> change may be subject to interpretation. When in doubt, I recommend >> staying on the safe side of not accepting a change that is more than >> 15 lines of "maybe-significant" changes. > > AFACT, there was no doubt involved when I said "15 lines of non-trivial > code". I'm sure there was no doubt on your side, but as the one responsible for the consistency of copyright assignment for Org-mode, my attention is necessarily triggered when I see a change of >20 lines marked as "tiny change". I fully trust your judgement. I am not arguing that *this* change required Dan to sign the papers. I'm saying that in general, I would rather avoid relying on the evaluation of the "triviality" of the locs and incite contributors to sign the papers. > If your point (I didn't get it actually) is "interpretation is hard, > let's not interpret anything and count everything as significant", well, > I think this is not a good way to look at the problem. But that's fine, > as long as it suits you. My point is this: the inconveniency of *systematically* requesting copyright assignment from the contributor when its contribution is more than 15 lines (significant *or not*) is a small inconveniency compared to the one of having to check carefully whether every >15 lines change is significant or not. And since is it a good outcome to have more people signing the FSF papers, I recommend requesting contributors to sign the copyright assignment for every >15 lines contributions (significant or not). Future maintainers may of course interpret the recommendations of the FSF differently, but that's mine for now. Thanks, -- Bastien
