Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs?
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1341089578.18033.7.camel@vanquo.pezone.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs? (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs?
|
Список | pgsql-docs |
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 that the Copyright year on the backbranches is always out-of-date - for 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.
В списке pgsql-docs по дате отправления: