On 20.03.2015 14:33, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 20.03.2015 14:31, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de >> <mailto: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. > > Don't need a C test for that, just tweak the getopt tests. Haven't > committed this yet because we might end up removing the copyright > blurb altogether.
And anyway, I think Philip's r1667990 is a better solution. +/e/^/i//π/ for a new test. -- Brane
