[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

RE: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

From: Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 14:08:01 +0100

Just a quick check, using the tag creation dates and what is in the file:

1.1.3

1.1.4

1.4.3

1.4.4

1.4.5

1.6.8

1.6.9

1.6.10

1.6.11

1.6.12

1.6.13

1.6.14

1.6.15

1.6.16

1.6.17

1.6.18

1.6.19

1.6.20

1.6.21

1.6.22

1.6.23

1.8.6

1.8.7

1.8.8

(I probably missed a few, as I didn't automate the matching... just the fetching)

 

Were all released with a nonmatching date. I think 1.7 is the only release line where we actually directly updated the year on the branch, the year after release. (For 1.6.x we never updated anything)

 

+1 on just releasing the releases as-is.

 

                Bert

 

 

From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein_at_gmail.com]
Sent: vrijdag 20 maart 2015 09:58
To: Branko Čibej
Cc: Subversion Development
Subject: Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

 

Daniel Berlin stated many years ago that the years associated with copyright lines are meaningless. There is no reason to burn/re-roll just for that.

 

The simple fact is that if you end up in court, then what is printed to the console has ZERO bearing (or what year is listed in a source file). The court will look at what/when changes *actually* happened. What we state is irrelevant. The commit logs are the important point.

 

So given that, what is the purpose of displaying those years? *shrug* (which was basically his point)

 

-0.9 to even thinking about burning tarballs for this reason.

 

-g

 

 

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:34 AM, Branko Čibej <brane_at_wandisco.com <mailto:brane_at_wandisco.com> > wrote:

I just noticed that we forgot to bump the displayed copyright year.
Fixed in r1667941 and nominated for backport to 1.9.x, 1.8.x and 1.7.x.
I also vetoed the 1.7.20 and 1.8.13 releases because of the wrong year
... we really shouldn't release with wrong legalese, and we already
allowed 1.9.0-beta1 to slip through with that buglet.

Sorry about not noticing this earlier, I realize we already have enough
votes tor 1.7.20 and 1.8.13; but I really think we should pull these
tarballs.

-- Brane

 
Received on 2015-03-20 14:10:09 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.