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

Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs?

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Subject: Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs?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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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

In response to

pgsql-docs by date

Next:From: Josh KupershmidtDate: 2012-06-30 03:10:40
Subject: Out of date advice about SIGTERM'ing backends
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2012-06-29 00:14:05
Subject: Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs?

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