This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] Correct machine name in config/m68k/tm-nbsd.h
- From: muller at cerbere dot u-strasbg dot fr
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>, muller at cerbere dot u-strasbg dot fr
- Cc: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 00:24:06 +0200
- Subject: Re: [RFA] Correct machine name in config/m68k/tm-nbsd.h
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org><20020424102300.B6310@nevyn.them.org><email@example.com>
At 21:18 25/04/02 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 12:42:42 +0200
>> From: Pierre Muller <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> >FYI, the guidelines for such decisions are in standards.texi (IIRC).
>> Sorry, but I went trough (quickly)
>> but didn't find anything about
>> years for copyrights.
>Sorry, my memory betrayed me: the guidelines I had in mind are in
>maintain.texi, not in standards.texi. (You can download maintain.texi
>from the GNU FTP site, if you don't have it.) Look for a node
>"Copyright Notices" in that manual.
Extracted from this file:
The list of year numbers should include each year in which you finished
preparing a version which was actually released, and which was an
ancestor of the current version.
Please reread the paragraph above, slowly and carefully. It is
important to understand that rule precisely, much as you would
understand a complicated C statement in order to hand-simulate it.
This list is _not_ a list of years in which versions were _released_.
It is a list of years in which versions, later released, were
_completed_. So if you finish a version on Dec 31, 1994 and release it
on Jan 1, 1995, this version requires the inclusion of 1994, but
doesn't require the inclusion of 1995.
After rereading, I understand that we should only add a year number
each time we release a version we should update the copyright
notice with the year corresponding to the last commit before
Shouldn't this be done automatically by some script??
Anyhow, as I understand this, I will not add 2002 to the year list,
as it might well be that we only release GDB 6.0 next year,
so if we add some other change in early 2003, that 2002
should not be in the list according to that rule!
But maybe I didn't reread it slowly enough....