Thread

obsolete copyright notice

Antonin Houska <antonin.houska@gmail.com> — 2012-07-05T20:10:08Z

I found out by chance that \copyright command still contains 2011.
Perhaps documentation of "new year's day changes" needs to be updated, 
if such exists.

Tony H.

Re: obsolete copyright notice

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> — 2012-07-06T00:13:44Z

On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 10:10:08PM +0200, Antonin Houska wrote:
> I found out by chance that \copyright command still contains 2011.
> Perhaps documentation of "new year's day changes" needs to be
> updated, if such exists.

What version of Postgres is this?  We don't update the copyright for
minor releases, so my bet is it is 9.1 because that was released in
2011.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

Re: obsolete copyright notice

Antonin Houska <antonin.houska@gmail.com> — 2012-07-06T09:06:28Z

On 07/06/2012 02:13 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 10:10:08PM +0200, Antonin Houska wrote:
>> I found out by chance that \copyright command still contains 2011.
>> Perhaps documentation of "new year's day changes" needs to be
>> updated, if such exists.
> What version of Postgres is this?
9.2beta1
> We don't update the copyright for
> minor releases,
I didn't know about this rule. I just saw the copyright updated in 
source files, so thought this was forgotten.
Sorry for the noise,
Tony H.

Re: obsolete copyright notice

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> — 2012-07-06T16:38:22Z

On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 11:06:28AM +0200, Antonin Houska wrote:
> On 07/06/2012 02:13 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 10:10:08PM +0200, Antonin Houska wrote:
> >>I found out by chance that \copyright command still contains 2011.
> >>Perhaps documentation of "new year's day changes" needs to be
> >>updated, if such exists.
> >What version of Postgres is this?
> 9.2beta1
> >We don't update the copyright for
> >minor releases,
> I didn't know about this rule. I just saw the copyright updated in
> source files, so thought this was forgotten.
> Sorry for the noise,

That is not "noise".  :-O  You are 100% correct that 9.2beta1 should
_not_ show 2011!  The 9.2 major release comes out in 2012 and should
show 2012 everywhere.

We created copyright.pl for 9.2, and it seems it is lacking in some
areas.  I just made several commits to fix problems I found:

* Fix perltidy problem caused by missing regex slash --- this was the
only file to generate an error file from perltidy, so I am confident
about the other files.  I reverted the perltidy and re-ran it to make
sure things were good.

* Fix code that was supposed to skip the .git directory, but wasn't
(added basename() call)

* Modified code so all lines are processed, not just the first match ---
this fixes the help.c file that causes the original report above.  I
checked the impact of not stopping after the first match and could not
find any problems.

The attached, applied patch to head and 9.2 addresses all these issues. 
Thanks for the report.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +