On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> 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. > Yah, it's good. I'm fine with anything that prevents future incidents. -- Stefan^2.
