Ping: unreviewed copyright patches

Richard Sandiford rdsandiford@googlemail.com
Sun Feb 3 17:42:00 GMT 2013


Bruce Korb <bkorb@gnu.org> writes:
> On 02/03/13 02:19, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Not exactly the most exciting patches, and certainly not worth more than
>> one ping, but:
>> 
>>   fixincludes copyright
>>   http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-01/msg00442.html
>
> You missed the file header.

That was deliberately in patch 2 though.

> Why bother with dual update issues?

Well, the point is that patch 2 is scripted.  Running the script as-is
would update both the header and version output.  That's actually what
I did in the original patch I posted back in January.  However, Joseph
pointed out that mkheaders should only print the last year rather than a
list of years or a range of years (apparently that's GNU policy):

   http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-01/msg00320.html

so patch 1 was supposed to be changing that first.

In other words, the copyright= suggestion seemed to be about having
the same string in both the headers and output, which is what you
also get by running the script.  But apparently the copyright notice
in the file header and the copyright notice that we print are supposed
to be different.

>>   http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-01/msg00443.html
>
> Is the project fixincludes, inclhack, gcc or unnamed?
> I think if you go to the trouble to clean all this up,
> one should be picked and it should be made consistent.  :)

OK, fair enough.  I guess I'll withdraw the fixincludes bits.

Believe me, I don't find copyright year lists vs. ranges any more
interesting than the next man.  This really was supposed to be
an attempt to make things simpler. :-)

Thanks,
Richard



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list