From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bastien Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] specify a time, not number of minutes to keep, with org-resolve-clock Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2020 14:10:28 +0100 Message-ID: <87sgjuh2rf.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87sgk4o2j2.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87imkuwhs4.fsf@gnu.org> <87y2tmd2ug.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35243) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ixsXi-0003TX-1N for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Feb 2020 08:10:35 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87y2tmd2ug.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> (Nicolas Goaziou's message of "Sat, 01 Feb 2020 11:22:15 +0100") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" To: Nicolas Goaziou Cc: Dan Drake , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hi Nicolas, I think it is worth spending a little time discussing this to ensure that everyone is aligned on the same understanding, otherwise we may have to spend more time later, discussing it over and over for other cases. Nicolas Goaziou writes: > So, I stand on my ground: there is a "non-trivial" part to take into > consideration when counting locs. Yes, you are right. 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. In general, the more FSF-signed contributors there are, the less time maintainers spend on deciding whether changes are significant or not. Also, signed contributors are more likely to contribute again, so I recommend inciting contributors to sign. I am glad we already have more than 200 signed contributors, that's a great achievement :) > I would go even further: when you transform a string regexp into a rx > regexp, there is no line to count, because there is no new idea to > copyright in the first place. This is a trivial change. Yes, in this case there is no new idea, but this is irrelevant to the discussion, since ideas cannot be copyrighted anyway. Copyright is about the expression of ideas, and code is also all about this, hence the difficulty, sometimes, to interpret "significant". > Anyway, I think arguing here is just wasting our time. 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. Thanks, -- Bastien