From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>,
	Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs?
In-reply-to: <20120629001405.GA19998@momjian.us>
References: <4FB56426.7050409@kaltenbrunner.cc>
	<1340140601.26286.28.camel@vanquo.pezone.net>
	<20120629001405.GA19998@momjian.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
	message dated "Thu, 28 Jun 2012 20:14:05 -0400"
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:12:24 -0400
Message-ID: <8891.1340935944@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.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