Re: Copyright in partition.h and partition.c

> On 06 Sep 2017, at 02:56, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>
> On 2017/09/05 21:14, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>>> On 2017/09/05 15:48, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>>>> Here is the copyright in partition.h:
>>>>
>>>> * Copyright (c) 2007-2017, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
>>>>
>>>> I think it's reasonable that that matches the copyright in partition.c,
>>>> but partition.c has:
>>>>
>>>> * Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2017, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
>>>> * Portions Copyright (c) 1994, Regents of the University of California
>>>>
>>>> Is that intentional?
>>
>>> No, it's unintentional. The difference may have resulted from copying
>>> different files to become partition.h and partition.c, respectively.
>>
>>> Maybe, we should change both to say 2016-2017?
>>
>>> I don't know the exact rule for how we determine those years. Is there
>>> some rule in place about that? When I look at execParallel.c, which
>>> supposedly got introduced into the tree recently, I see 1996-2017. OTOH,
>>> the files in contrib/bloom all have 2016-2017.
>>
>> Our usual practice is to write the copyright like it is in partition.c
>> even in new files. This avoids any question about whether any of the
>> code was copied-and-pasted from somewhere else in PG. Even if not one
>> word in the file can be traced to code that was somewhere else before,
>> it seems to me that this is an appropriate thing to do, to give due
>> credit to those who came before us.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> In short: we should make partition.h's copyright look like partition.c's
>> not vice versa.
>
> Attached patch does that.

This reminded me that I’d seen one of these before while hacking, and with some
grep and xargs abuse I spotted one more (there might be more that my command
line fu didn’t catch though). Attached could perhaps be included with the
above patch?

Perhaps the copyright script should be expanded to catch these? (and I
volunteer to attempt that unless it’s deemed an uninteresting feature)

cheers ./daniel