On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Stefan Sperling <s...@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 year. > > 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 already > > 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. -- Stefan^2.
