On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 2:12 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> writes: > > I'd like to get rid of those IDENTIFICATION lines completely (they are > > left over from the time when the project used CVS, and that section > > had a $Header$ "ident" tag, but in the git era, those ident tags are > > no longer in fashion). > > I'm not for that. Arguments about CVS vs git are irrelevant: the > usefulness of those lines comes up when you've got a file that's > not in your source tree but somewhere else. It's particularly > useful for the Makefiles, which are otherwise often same-y and > hard to identify. > > > There are other inconsistencies in the copyright messages, like > > whether we say "Portions" or not for PGDU, and whether we use 1996- or > > the year the file was created, and whether the Berkeley copyright is > > there or not (different people seem to have different ideas about > > whether that's needed for a post-Berkeley file). > > Yeah, it'd be nice to have some greater consistency there. My own > thought about it is that it's rare to have a file that's *completely* > de novo code, and can be guaranteed to stay that way --- more usually > there is some amount of copying&pasting, and then you have to wonder > how much of that material could be traced back to Berkeley. So I > prefer to err on the side of including their copyright. That line of > argument basically leads to the conclusion that all the copyright tags > should be identical, which doesn't seem like an unreasonable rule. >
I had seen that most files use the below format: /*------------------------------------------------------------------------- * relation.c * PostgreSQL logical replication * * Copyright (c) 2016-2019, PostgreSQL Global Development Group * * IDENTIFICATION * src/backend/replication/logical/relation.c * * NOTES * This file contains helper functions for logical replication relation * mapping cache. * *------------------------------------------------------------------------- */ Can we use the above format as a standard format? Regards, Vignesh EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
