| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs? |
| Date: | 2012-06-29 02:12:24 |
| Message-ID: | 8891.1340935944@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Kupershmidt | 2012-06-30 03:10:40 | Out of date advice about SIGTERM'ing backends |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-06-29 00:14:05 | Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs? |