[committed] 2011 and 2012 Copyright year updates
Sun Jan 6 21:48:00 GMT 2013
Jakub Jelinek <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 12:13:32PM +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> I never remember to update the copyright years, so I thought I'd have a go.
>> And you were right of course. It ended up being a huge time sink.
>> Anyway, here's my attempt a script to convert to ranges and, if enabled,
>> to include the current year. The script only updates FSF copyright notices
>> and leaves others alone. I've tried my best to make sure that licences
>> and imported FSF sources aren't touched, but I could have missed some cases.
> Looks reasonable to me, though I'd like to hear richi's and Joseph's
> opinion too.
> I've noticed a minor nit:
> --- gcc.orig/gcc/testsuite/gcc.misc-tests/linkage.exp
> +++ gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.misc-tests/linkage.exp
> @@ -1,5 +1,4 @@
> -# Copyright (C) 1988, 90-96, 1997, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2007, 2008, 2010,
> -# 2011,
> -# 2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> +# Copyright (C) 90-2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> That should have been presumably 1988-2012, haven't looked at other similar
Gah, good catch. Fixed in my local copy. I also added a bit of extra
error checking to try to make sure the years were sane.
Since it's a big patch, I'll see if there are any more comments before
sending an update.
> As for updating to -2013, I think it isn't appropriate for all
> files, e.g. I'd leave ChangeLog* and various README* files to keep their
> finish date as is, say ChangeLog.2003 can be just Copyright (c) 2003,
> doesn't need to be 2003-2013. Perhaps just automatically add -2013 to gcc
> (except gcc/testsuite) *.[ch], *.md, *.def, *.opt files or so, plus
> gcc/testsuite *.exp files? E.g. testsuite *.c/*.C files that are Copyright
> 2004 don't need to be -2013?
Yeah. I'd also tried to avoid touching the gcc tests in this patch,
so hopefully the same filter would be OK when adding the extra year.
The script applies a similar filter to the libjava testsuite. I wasn't
sure what do about libstdc++ though, since its testsuite seems less like
a random collection of tests. I'll cross-post any libstdc++ stuff to
the libstdc++ list once the GCC side has settled down.
I think we should also update the year in the documentation (possibly
including the READMEs). There are also awk scripts, random shell
scripts, OCaml generators, etc., so it's probably easier to list what
should be left out rather than what should be included. The current GNU
guidelines seem to actively encourage a blanket update.
Agreed on the historical changelogs though. It does seem silly to
> Also, just a remainder, any Copyright line change in libstdc++-v3/include
> might potentially require adjustments to libstdc++-v3/testsuite/, because
> various tests have header line numbers hardcoded in them.
OK, thanks for the heads up. The libstdc++ and libjava changes the
ones I'm least certain about.
More information about the Gcc-patches