Eric Blake wrote:
> They are recommended by the GNU Coding Standards as an attribution that
> the code fits under the tiny change rule, and hence that checking for that
> contributor's copyright assignment when doing an audit is not necessary.
Ah. Thanks for explaining. The copy of the GCS where I
Hello Bruno,
* Bruno Haible wrote on Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 02:25:13PM CEST:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
> > That change also removed all "(tiny change)" annotations.
>
> What were these annotations meant to mean?
They are explained here:
http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Legally-Significan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Bruno Haible on 10/10/2006 6:25 AM:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> That change also removed all "(tiny change)" annotations.
>
> What were these annotations meant to mean?
They are recommended by the GNU Coding Standards as an attribution that
Jim Meyering wrote:
> That change also removed all "(tiny change)" annotations.
What were these annotations meant to mean?
Bruno
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Eggert wrote:
>> I merged all the gnulib ChangeLog files into one ChangeLog, at the
>> top.
>
> And I redid the line breaking, to fit in 80 columns (actually 79 columns
> where possible).
That change also removed all "(tiny change)" annotations.
Here
Paul Eggert wrote:
> I merged all the gnulib ChangeLog files into one ChangeLog, at the
> top.
And I redid the line breaking, to fit in 80 columns (actually 79 columns
where possible).
Bruno
I merged all the gnulib ChangeLog files into one ChangeLog, at the
top. The merge was mostly done automatically, and no doubt could be
done better (i.e., related changes put together), but that can be done
later if someone has the time.
The changes are long and mechanical, so I'm not including th
