Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs?

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Subject: Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs?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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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 that the Copyright year on the backbranches is always out-of-date - for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:
> > 
> >
> > 
> > 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>

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to


pgsql-docs by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-06-29 02:12:24
Subject: Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs?
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2012-06-22 03:03:31
Subject: Re: Comment on max_locks_per_transaction

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group