Re: [RFC PATCH] specify a time, not number of minutes to keep, with org-resolve-clock

[Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>]

Bastien <bzg@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".

> Yes, in this case there is no new idea, but this is irrelevant to the
> discussion,

I thought we had a discussion about it recently, but my memories may be
brittle.

> since ideas cannot be copyrighted anyway.

I knew I shouldn't have used this word. Fair enough. Replace it with
"process", or whatever has a copyright meaning.

> Well, I hope I clarified my point, which is to stay on safe side of
> asking contributors to sign the FSF papers when the importance of the
> change can be subject to intepretation.

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.

Regards,