Re: change-log-font-lock-keywords

[Sam Steingold]

> * Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> [2011-04-16 12:00:08 -0300]:
>
>> in clisp we have a few "thanks" notes:
>
>> $ grep '^        Thanks' src/ChangeLog 
>>         Thanks to Carlos Ungil <address@hidden> for testing.
>>         Thanks to Daniel Leidert <address@hidden> for much enlightening!
>>         Thanks to Eric Blake <address@hidden> for much enlightening!
>>         Thanks to Yaroslav Kavenchuk <address@hidden> for investigation.
>>         Thanks to Michael Kappert <address@hidden> for testing.
>>         Thanks to Michael Kappert <address@hidden> for testing.
>>         Thanks to Laurent Vaucher <address@hidden>
>>         Thanks to Michael Kappert <address@hidden> for testing
>>         Thanks to Yaroslav Kavenchuk <address@hidden> for debugging
>>         Thanks to Feng Hou <address@hidden> for report, test case and fix.
>>         Thanks to Feng Hou <address@hidden> for report and patch.
>>         Thanks to Dan Knapp, John K. Hinsdale, and Jörg Höhle
>>         Thanks to Daniel Buenzli and Sunil Mishra for feedback.
>
>> Is it okay to make change-log-font-lock-keywords highlight these?
>
> The point of the comment you quoted is that "thanks to" doesn't say
> exactly what was the nature of the contribution.
> If the patch is from address@hidden, then address@hidden should be in the 
> line above
> the description of the change.
> If address@hidden only provided hints or reported the error, but did not
> provide actual code, then we use "Reported by" or "Suggested by", both
> of which are highlighted.

What should I write if the person
 - tested the patch (the patch author might not have access to the
   relevant platform) -- or
 - debugged the code and investigated the problem in detail -- or
 - just explained to the patch author how something relevant works
   (e.g., TCP/IP or autotools or X)

> We could highlight "Thanks to" as well, but the above seems to indicate
> that you tend to misuse it since it does include cases where the person
> submitted actual code, so his/her name should be elsewhere.
>
> Part of the reason why the difference is important is that it clearly
> separate the cases where the contribution might affect the
> copyright status.

Indeed "thanks for patch" and "thanks for fix" suggest that some code
was submitted, but it does not necessarily mean that the submitted code
was committed as is (or at all) - in that case the person's name would
have been in the title.

Thanks for your reply.


-- 
Sam Steingold (http://sds.podval.org/) on CentOS release 5.5 (Final) X 
11.0.60900031
http://thereligionofpeace.com http://dhimmi.com http://ffii.org
http://openvotingconsortium.org http://www.PetitionOnline.com/tap12009/
Please wait, MS Windows are preparing the blue screen of death.