From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 41940 invoked by alias); 13 Feb 2020 03:13:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 41914 invoked by uid 89); 13 Feb 2020 03:13:22 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=H*f:sk:97220ae, H*MI:sk:97220ae, H*i:sk:97220ae X-HELO: smtp.polymtl.ca Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (HELO smtp.polymtl.ca) (132.207.4.11) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 03:13:19 +0000 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 01D3D939014910 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 12 Feb 2020 22:13:14 -0500 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 01D3D939014910 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=polymtl.ca; s=default; t=1581563595; bh=a66RHldUZskpSh/UUfmThbkxUhAsl41DgROLCoFx6og=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=vWWP/DyidPVn+MJ6FlLIZ697djd80V10KV0f9xeXZSYoN4Rkl87ECETn9HFb617Q5 1zZxfxBD9lox2Cae9UOn4sxLY17ai2g/jlBkIGF17XLdy/t/zvummftUN0tQaT8eRa 1gR3DkYPJRE5tuja8rIF+V1nPscPz2ehfc4YMSMY= Received: from [10.0.0.11] (unknown [192.222.164.54]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1C2171E4C2; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 22:13:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Using the vcs_to_changelog.py script To: law@redhat.com, Alan Modra Cc: binutils@sourceware.org, "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" References: <20200213010322.GB29647@bubble.grove.modra.org> <97220aed713c824cecd34a5eceee1af3b63ebd18.camel@redhat.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <5d79d322-d9a7-dceb-6cdb-a8e240f22fe0@polymtl.ca> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 03:13:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <97220aed713c824cecd34a5eceee1af3b63ebd18.camel@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2020-02/txt/msg00235.txt.bz2 > On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 11:33 +1030, Alan Modra wrote: >> Does this satisfy the FSF legal requirements? "Who changed what" >> won't be accurate unless committers remember to set the author >> properly on commits made for other people. This naturally happens when using the typical git workflow. If someone sends a patch using git-send-email and somebody else applies it using git-am, the authorship information reflects the original author's identity. We should always encourage people to send patches using git-send-email (or worst case, git-format-patch) and not plain diffs, for this reason and many others. On 2020-02-12 9:29 p.m., Jeff Law wrote: > RMS and/or the FSF blessed it for glibc a while back. So it'd seem > suitable for other projects under the FSF umbrella. I'm hoping we'll > make the same change for GCC, but there's some inertia to push through > :( That is exactly what I presumed and what I am hoping for. But the proposed changes to standards.texi do specifically mention that using this script is fine (the script name changed, but I am fairly sure it's referring to that script): https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-standards/2020-01/msg00000.html Simon