Message-ID: <1341089578.18033.7.camel@vanquo.pezone.net>
Subject: Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs?
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 23:52:58 +0300
In-Reply-To: <20120629001405.GA19998@momjian.us>
References: <4FB56426.7050409@kaltenbrunner.cc>
	<1340140601.26286.28.camel@vanquo.pezone.net>
	<20120629001405.GA19998@momjian.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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 that the Copyright year on the backbranches is always out-of-date - for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.