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: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 19:07:15 -0400
- 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> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 12:24:06AM +0200, email@example.com wrote:
> 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
> the release....
> 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....
I believe that "made available in a public CVS" counts as "released"
for these purposes. That's how projects seem to manage it, at least.
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer