Hi Jim,
On 15 Nov 2011, at 20:10, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>> On 15 Nov 2011, at 19:02, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>> 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.
Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> 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 s
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
Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> 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.g
Hi Jim,
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
>> the reasons stated earlier in the thread.
>>
>> Okay to push?
>>
>> The FSF require that all non-trivial patches to its projects be
>>
Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> I think 'Copyright-paper-required: No' is still the best compromise here for
> the reasons stated earlier in the thread.
>
> Okay to push?
>
> The FSF require that all non-trivial patches to its projects be
> accompanied by appropriate paperwork, or that any patches that ar
Thanks Karl and Jim for the feedback, resubmitting for approval below.
On 10 Nov 2011, at 23:47, Karl Berry wrote:
>> On 1 Nov 2011, at 20:13, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>> Actually, I question whether establishing such a convention.
>>> and going to this trouble is worthwhile, since the size of the
>
Can we just take the difference between lines added and lines
removed per patch, and automatically add the (tiny change) annotation
to the generated ChangeLog if that turns out to be 5 or less? I
tend to think not,
I tend to agree with you, for the reasons you state. (Unfortunat
Hi Karl,
On 10 Nov 2011, at 06:45, Karl Berry wrote:
> Sorry, I didn't know I was in the loop here. Didn't see my name at the
> bottom of a 200-line msg with lots of quotes.
No worries, that's what I figured :)
> Having now read it, I am not sure what the question is. Maybe it's
> this: Change
Ping Karl...
Sorry, I didn't know I was in the loop here. Didn't see my name at the
bottom of a 200-line msg with lots of quotes.
Having now read it, I am not sure what the question is. Maybe it's
this: ChangeLog's of FSF-copyrighted packages must keep the "(tiny
change)" convention as far
Ping Karl...
Depending on your thoughts, I will resubmit this patch series for gnulib
rather than keeping the patches solely in Libtool's tree.
On 1 Nov 2011, at 20:56, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> On 1 Nov 2011, at 20:13, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/ChangeLog
Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>> The notation requirement made more sense back each ChangeLog entry
>> was not tied to the associated patch.
>
> Before modern VCS you mean?
Right.
> That's before my time then... even CVS still ties
> the ChangeLog to the patch does it not?
No. With CVS, it was not unc
Hi Jim, Karl,
On 1 Nov 2011, at 20:13, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>>
>> diff --git a/ChangeLog b/ChangeLog
>> index f370be6..d59d9f9 100644
>> --- a/ChangeLog
>> +++ b/ChangeLog
>> @@ -1,5 +1,14 @@
>> 2011-11-01 Gary V. Vaughan
>>
>> +gitlog-to-changelog: support `tiny c
Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> Here is another patch to solve a similar issue with ChangeLog `tiny change'
> annotations, by interpreting a 'Copyright-paperwork-required: No' line in
> the git log message to mean that the ChangeLog output requires the `tiny
> change' annotation.
>
> Because the annotatio
Here is another patch to solve a similar issue with ChangeLog `tiny change'
annotations, by interpreting a 'Copyright-paperwork-required: No' line in
the git log message to mean that the ChangeLog output requires the `tiny
change' annotation.
Because the annotation is added to the date_line, there
15 matches
Mail list logo
