Re: Test to dump and restore objects left behind by regression - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Ashutosh Bapat
Subject Re: Test to dump and restore objects left behind by regression
Date
Msg-id CAExHW5sN9F1sauAPWVBrruMKm2AWsaeuHrOUJq7ehbiXTiFFCw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Test to dump and restore objects left behind by regression  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 6:04 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> On 2025-Mar-21, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 8:37 PM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Should the copyright be only 2025 in this case:
>
> > The patch was posted in 2024 to this mailing list. So we better
> > protect the copyright since then. I remember a hackers discussion
> > where a senior member of the community mentioned that there's not harm
> > in mentioning longer copyright periods than being stricter about it. I
> > couldn't find the discussion though.
>
> On the other hand, my impression is that we do update copyright years to
> current year, when committing new files of patches that have been around
> for long.
>
> And there's always
> https://liferay.dev/blogs/-/blogs/how-and-why-to-properly-write-copyright-statements-in-your-code

Right. So shouldn't the copyright notice be 2024-2025 and not just
only 2025? - Next year it will be changed to 2024-2026.


--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER
Next
From: vignesh C
Date:
Subject: Re: Test to dump and restore objects left behind by regression