| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs? |
| Date: | 2012-06-29 00:14:05 |
| Message-ID: | 20120629001405.GA19998@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
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 that the Copyright year on the backbranches is always out-of-date - for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?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-06-29 02:12:24 | Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs? |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-06-22 03:03:31 | Re: Comment on max_locks_per_transaction |