From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk1-x734.google.com (mail-qk1-x734.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::734]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E51633857C4C for ; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 21:04:38 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org E51633857C4C Received: by mail-qk1-x734.google.com with SMTP id v143so18443015qkb.2 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 13:04:38 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=eoPSI3EGGtRgWzMQNQt3BzKMUIxmmqMB+WTsQhHvzyY=; b=RR4UngLCb8meWKYB6mkr+6c6SyzTQnIoKH12NPmEvCXC74/kGL5wYcVNIMYQrbmzxM VptYkPflIk04n7HCts7VHt5Pc13AenkDMrRq1MkgZI4uILXXSH/aRnHwHqOLwWlmcU1X B47+NUz0dQ161VrZuROSEXTbiyKWkoVbY5LCDQU8fSl8xQtH34V/q9+sJfeQv2d4n2bR U8clAf6Y5P+/JEVwKoBAiCmSCVcr90U4I40CBzceszI1wND9KqmK2O48B4U8Adx4L7Mb pNrS+9hHLQDS8XbwY4Dy65oXNkzDvvekWvpDL9vVKxmv+4Le1FP81NBG4oz0J1nPSCt3 IOtQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533XVPkY+SdUrE4kkPODeJewuJTEChw+KbXUeyg/MABjD9i72CZi m7N9KbUFo3fCLpWlnJ1JeJHb1FIMg3U= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwBedlnlBiRMlZcKT1tFMgdaStzRvvYEkOdPHRuIK10w963q99YltFVAmVl+qwuIx+I6LtEhg== X-Received: by 2002:a37:56c3:: with SMTP id k186mr1505681qkb.232.1606165478189; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 13:04:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.41] (75-166-106-198.hlrn.qwest.net. [75.166.106.198]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p22sm1335814qtu.61.2020.11.23.13.04.37 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 23 Nov 2020 13:04:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: broken check: You should edit tm.texi.in rather than tm.texi To: Joseph Myers Cc: GCC Development References: <7b8dd4da-b93f-c303-c07e-c97e55695b43@gmail.com> From: Martin Sebor Message-ID: <0fed7935-7b6c-1b77-01a4-da312a2870fe@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 14:04:36 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 21:04:40 -0000 On 11/23/20 1:25 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Mon, 23 Nov 2020, Martin Sebor via Gcc wrote: > >> I'd expect the best way to ensure the two copies of the contributed >> text are in sync is to copy it automatically. If the only point of >> asking the author to do it by hand each time they change the file >> is to "Verify that they have permission to grant a GFDL license" >> than that step could be done once, the result recorded somewhere >> (e.g., in the MAINTAINERS file), and automated when making changes >> by having the script look it up. > > That permission is a function of the particular change being made (if it > involves text previously in GPL-only parts of GCC being copied into the > GFDL manual, that needs a docstring relicensing review), not just of the > person making the change. I see. So this check is in place just for the case of copying someone else's text from some other manual to the internals manual. Either way, though, asking the person making the change to verify they have a permission to do it isn't sufficient. If they're not the author of the text being copied or one of the two roles above then how can they verify it? I wouldn't know how and I'd be shocked if I was alone. Even if we could verify it, it's unnecessary to make the build fail every time we change the file and force us to copy it by hand. It seems to me a better time/place to do this, now that we have Git, is by a commit hook, advising the committer that they should seek the licensing review. Even this could be avoided if the commit message somehow indicated the licensing review was done (e.g., by a Reviewed-By tag naming one of the special reviewers). Is implementing something like this feasible? Martin