Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:16:41AM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I've fixed this in all the active back branches. The copyright tool in
>> src/tools/ does inform about doing these changes, but whoever does them
>> has apparently not read that.
> I didn't think we wanted to update back branch copyright end dates
> because that would effect thing like psql \copyright display, and the
> risk didn't seem worth it.
> Do we want back-branches updated in the future?
We have never done that in the past, and I don't think we should start
now. What I thought Peter was complaining about was that legal.sgml
had been missed in the *head* branch. However, a look in the git
history shows that hasn't happened since 2005, so it seems like the
current process is OK.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-docs by date
|Next:||From: Josh Kupershmidt||Date: 2012-06-30 03:10:40|
|Subject: Out of date advice about SIGTERM'ing backends|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2012-06-29 00:14:05|
|Subject: Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs?|