From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] specify a time, not number of minutes to keep, with
 org-resolve-clock
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2020 15:15:10 +0100
Message-ID: <87h80acs29.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
References: <CAKqbAeEPFi8jDEP0D7OCQxUdpc0pRdQ0PEuwrbWB1T1S8Lv5sg@mail.gmail.com>
 <87sgk4o2j2.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87imkuwhs4.fsf@gnu.org>
 <87y2tmd2ug.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87sgjuh2rf.fsf@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53520)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
 (envelope-from <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>) id 1ixtYY-0004mG-CS
 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Feb 2020 09:15:31 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>) id 1ixtYW-00012J-W5
 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Feb 2020 09:15:29 -0500
In-Reply-To: <87sgjuh2rf.fsf@gnu.org> (Bastien's message of "Sat, 01 Feb 2020
 14:10:28 +0100")
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
 <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
 <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Emacs-orgmode"
 <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org>
To: Bastien <bzg@gnu.org>
Cc: Dan Drake <dan.drake@gmail.com>, emacs-orgmode@gnu.org

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,