Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs?

On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 11:52:58PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 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 that the Copyright year on the backbranches is always out-of-date - for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.

OK, I updated the copyright tool to mention this for back branches.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

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