Re: [PATCH v2 00/42] man page patches to findutils Git

Happy New MMXXVI.

On 11/19/25 10:34, James Youngman wrote:
> [ This is a reply to Branden, but some of the questions here are directed
> at Bernhard ]
> 
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 3:42 AM G. Branden Robinson <
> [email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> Here's take two of my proposed man page changes.
>>
> 
> Thanks.  I have imported these as a local branch and, I hope later this
> week, will take a closer look at them with a view to applying them.
>   Among other reasons, that "closer look" is needed for my education, so
> that I don't subsequently reintroduce the goofs corrected in these patches.
> 
> I haven't looked in about 10 years to be honest, [...]

I also have to confess that I never dug more into man page syntax than
necessary.  IMO it should be kept as simple as possible.

>> I hereby license all of these patches under CC0 1.0 Universal.
>>
>> https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode
>>
>>
> Because with git these patches each have their own independent existence
> also,* I will copy the above declaration into the git log message of each
> of your patches before applying/merging them*.  I trust that this is OK.

yes, the CCO is fully compatible with the GPL:
   https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC0

Instead of copying the above license declaration, I would refer to the
whole discussion [1], and add the usual
     "Copyright-paperwork-exempt: Yes"
marker.
I think this is sufficient since the non-whitespace content changes of
all patches together are < 10 words.

[1] https://lists.gnu.org/r/bug-findutils/2025-11/msg00094.html

> The other change I expect to make is a few small tweaks to line up the
> format of the change log messages with the style used in
> https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Style-of-Change-Logs.html;
[...]
> (Bernhard, if you don't feel it's necessary to follow the GNU Project's
> ChangeLog style guidance so closely, please say so; I don't think anybody
> would expect ChangeLog entries to be machine-parseable, after all, so
> perhaps this last change is not really necessary).

I did not look into the generated ChangeLog file for quite a while, and I doubt
anyone else does (for findutils), because the user-visible changes are documented
in NEWS file and the original commit logs are easily readable in Git.
Now, I looked into the generated ChangeLog file, and it looks quite okay to me.

Still, I massaged the commit messages a bit - mainly to always reference the
full names of the changes files.

The attached is the patchset I intend to apply.
Comments?

Have a nice day,
Berny