On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Branko Čibej <brane_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> On 20.03.2015 14:33, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > On 20.03.2015 14:31, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de
> >> <mailto:stsp_at_elego.de>> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 08:34:00AM +0100, Branko Čibej wrote:
> >> > I just noticed that we forgot to bump the displayed copyright
> >> > 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
> >> > 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
> >> If we decide to pull these releases based on this problem, then I'm
> >> against making everyone re-run tests for this. Just allow people to
> >> diff the tarballs and submit a new signature based on that.
> >> Could we have a buildbot test for this kind of problem?
> >> Should our rat-report bot (which I can't seem to locate in the maze
> >> of buildbot right now) perhaps check for this?
> >> Yes, I think we should add a simple C test calling svn_version_extended.
> >> If the year differs from the actual, FAIL. Have a grace period from
> >> Dec 15
> >> to Jan 15. That test would act as a simple reminder.
> >> I'd be happy to implement it.
> > Don't need a C test for that, just tweak the getopt tests. Haven't
> > committed this yet because we might end up removing the copyright
> > blurb altogether.
> And anyway, I think Philip's r1667990 is a better solution. +/e/^/i//π/
> for a new test.
Yah, it's good. I'm fine with anything that prevents future incidents.
Received on 2015-03-20 18:38:02 CET