Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs?

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs?
Date: 2012-06-30 20:52:58
Message-ID: 1341089578.18033.7.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs

On tor, 2012-06-28 at 20:14 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:16:41AM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > This seems to be wrong in all branches and has the additional problem
> > > that the Copyright year on the backbranches is always out-of-date - for
> > > example:
> > >
> > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/LEGALNOTICE.html
> > >
> > > will have 2009 for 8.4.11 which was released in 2012...
> > >
> > > any thoughts on what the correct way to fix this is?
> >
> > 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?

I think we should update at least COPYRIGHT and doc/src/sgml/legal.sgml,
which are the most user-facing files. Updating all the source files is
probably not necessary.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2012-07-03 00:30:07 File format for SSL CRL file
Previous Message Josh Kupershmidt 2012-06-30 03:10:40 Out of date advice about SIGTERM'ing backends