Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs? - Mailing list pgsql-docs

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs?
Date
Msg-id 1341089578.18033.7.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs?  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Responses Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs?  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List 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 that the Copyright year on the backbranches is always out-of-date - for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.


pgsql-docs by date:

Previous
From: Josh Kupershmidt
Date:
Subject: Out of date advice about SIGTERM'ing backends
Next
From: Greg Smith
Date:
Subject: File format for SSL CRL file