Branko Čibej wrote:
> I just fixed that and proposed the backports ... and IMO NOTICE is an
> even stronger reason not to release as-is. Surely we should apply the
> same standards to our releases as that we regularly brainwash podlings
> about.
We should apply the same standards, yes. Is this issue a
release-blocking violation of those standards? No, I don't think it
is. I have voted +1 to backport the updates, but I stand by my +1
votes to release as is. The copyright year statement is a whole number
approximation to a fuzzy quantity; as such it is inevitably subject to
being inaccurate whenever any work is prepared for release near the
beginning of a year. It would be better to say 2015 in this case, but
not unconditionally wrong to say 2014.
- Julian
Received on 2015-03-20 13:52:04 CET