Re: [committed] 2011 and 2012 Copyright year updates
On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 08:48:52PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote: Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu. OK to install? Ok, thanks. Jakub
Re: [committed] 2011 and 2012 Copyright year updates
On Sun, 6 Jan 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 12:13:32PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote: I never remember to update the copyright years, so I thought I'd have a go. And you were right of course. It ended up being a huge time sink. Anyway, here's my attempt a script to convert to ranges and, if enabled, to include the current year. The script only updates FSF copyright notices and leaves others alone. I've tried my best to make sure that licences and imported FSF sources aren't touched, but I could have missed some cases. Looks reasonable to me, though I'd like to hear richi's and Joseph's opinion too. Certainly fine with me. Richard. I've noticed a minor nit: --- gcc.orig/gcc/testsuite/gcc.misc-tests/linkage.exp +++ gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.misc-tests/linkage.exp @@ -1,5 +1,4 @@ -# Copyright (C) 1988, 90-96, 1997, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2007, 2008, 2010, -# 2011, -# 2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc. +# Copyright (C) 90-2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc. That should have been presumably 1988-2012, haven't looked at other similar cases. As for updating to -2013, I think it isn't appropriate for all files, e.g. I'd leave ChangeLog* and various README* files to keep their finish date as is, say ChangeLog.2003 can be just Copyright (c) 2003, doesn't need to be 2003-2013. Perhaps just automatically add -2013 to gcc (except gcc/testsuite) *.[ch], *.md, *.def, *.opt files or so, plus gcc/testsuite *.exp files? E.g. testsuite *.c/*.C files that are Copyright 2004 don't need to be -2013? Also, just a remainder, any Copyright line change in libstdc++-v3/include might potentially require adjustments to libstdc++-v3/testsuite/, because various tests have header line numbers hardcoded in them. Jakub -- Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de SUSE / SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746 GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend
Re: [committed] 2011 and 2012 Copyright year updates
On Sun, 6 Jan 2013, Richard Sandiford wrote: Anyway, here's my attempt a script to convert to ranges and, if enabled, to include the current year. The script only updates FSF copyright notices and leaves others alone. I've tried my best to make sure that licences and imported FSF sources aren't touched, but I could have missed some cases. I don't see anything to exclude the soft-fp files imported from glibc (where the current glibc versions should be copied instead ... but note that some soft-fp files, e.g. for TImode, are GCC-specific and not in glibc). It may make sense to leave out libiberty (and other directories shared with the src repository) initially. To convert them, binutils will need an appropriate README notice explaining the meaning of ranges (like the one I added to GCC's toplevel README a while back), as per GNU policy, and someone may need to work out whether any missing years being inserted in the ranges need to be copyrightable years for all of GCC, binutils and GDB (and what the copyrightable year ranges are in each case - the years in which either there was a release of the relevant package, including beta releases etc., or it had public version control). I think a patch for each directory will need posting separately for review of such things as whether any imported / generated files are mistakenly changed. I've also attached a bzip2 patch of the gcc/ and fixincludes/ part. This patch converts to ranges but doesn't add 2013. I can add 2013 at the same time, separately or not at all; let me know. I think 2013 should be added (so the notices should say year-2013, for any value of year 1986 or later, all years 1987 and later being copyrightable years for GCC). But --version notices should just say 2013 (including e.g. that in fixincludes/mkheaders.in). -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
Re: [committed] 2011 and 2012 Copyright year updates
Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com writes: On Sun, 6 Jan 2013, Richard Sandiford wrote: Anyway, here's my attempt a script to convert to ranges and, if enabled, to include the current year. The script only updates FSF copyright notices and leaves others alone. I've tried my best to make sure that licences and imported FSF sources aren't touched, but I could have missed some cases. I don't see anything to exclude the soft-fp files imported from glibc (where the current glibc versions should be copied instead ... but note that some soft-fp files, e.g. for TImode, are GCC-specific and not in glibc). Hmm, OK. Is there a plan to move those to glibc? Every file seems to say This file is part of the GNU C Library., but it wasn't obvious whether that was an aspiration or just cut--paste. Maybe it'd be easier for the script to treat them all as imported and soft-fp altogether. Would that be OK? It may make sense to leave out libiberty (and other directories shared with the src repository) initially. To convert them, binutils will need an appropriate README notice explaining the meaning of ranges (like the one I added to GCC's toplevel README a while back), as per GNU policy, and someone may need to work out whether any missing years being inserted in the ranges need to be copyrightable years for all of GCC, binutils and GDB (and what the copyrightable year ranges are in each case - the years in which either there was a release of the relevant package, including beta releases etc., or it had public version control). OK, hadn't expected it to be that complicated, but there again, I wasn't sure if we'd ever use the --shared flag anyway. It was there as much to differentiate the shared with src cases from the imported from upstream cases. I think a patch for each directory will need posting separately for review of such things as whether any imported / generated files are mistakenly changed. So fixincludes/ separate from gcc/, and every library separate? OK. I've also attached a bzip2 patch of the gcc/ and fixincludes/ part. This patch converts to ranges but doesn't add 2013. I can add 2013 at the same time, separately or not at all; let me know. I think 2013 should be added (so the notices should say year-2013, for any value of year 1986 or later, all years 1987 and later being copyrightable years for GCC). But --version notices should just say 2013 (including e.g. that in fixincludes/mkheaders.in). OK, thanks. Richard
Re: [committed] 2011 and 2012 Copyright year updates
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Richard Sandiford rdsandif...@googlemail.com wrote: I think a patch for each directory will need posting separately for review of such things as whether any imported / generated files are mistakenly changed. So fixincludes/ separate from gcc/, and every library separate? OK. Separate? Seems pretty inextricably intertwined to me. Maybe I'm coming in too late in this conversation. I'll just update the copyrights in the next few days. It (fixincludes) has _certainly_ been updated every year of its existence. (Probably ought not count the original shell script, though I did lift all of its expressions) Cheers - Bruce
Re: [committed] 2011 and 2012 Copyright year updates
On Mon, 7 Jan 2013, Richard Sandiford wrote: Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com writes: On Sun, 6 Jan 2013, Richard Sandiford wrote: Anyway, here's my attempt a script to convert to ranges and, if enabled, to include the current year. The script only updates FSF copyright notices and leaves others alone. I've tried my best to make sure that licences and imported FSF sources aren't touched, but I could have missed some cases. I don't see anything to exclude the soft-fp files imported from glibc (where the current glibc versions should be copied instead ... but note that some soft-fp files, e.g. for TImode, are GCC-specific and not in glibc). Hmm, OK. Is there a plan to move those to glibc? Every file seems to say This file is part of the GNU C Library., but it wasn't obvious whether that was an aspiration or just cut--paste. They'd only move to glibc if some architecture has a use for them (most likely if some architecture wishes to support rounding modes and exceptions for soft-float, like powerpc, but also has TImode support; in that case the best results would come from that architecture using these functions only in glibc and not in libgcc at all). Maybe it'd be easier for the script to treat them all as imported and soft-fp altogether. Would that be OK? Sure. The point should be to get something in that covers a useful set of files, and then its coverage can be expanded incrementally later. OK, hadn't expected it to be that complicated, but there again, I wasn't sure if we'd ever use the --shared flag anyway. It was there as much to differentiate the shared with src cases from the imported from upstream cases. I didn't look at what options might cause the script to touch what directories, just for cases that appeared like they might be covered but that have complications. I think a patch for each directory will need posting separately for review of such things as whether any imported / generated files are mistakenly changed. So fixincludes/ separate from gcc/, and every library separate? OK. Yes, I think that will produce sensibly-sized chunks for people familiar with the relevant directories to review to see whether any imported files are being inappropriately changed, generated files changed without corresponding changes to their sources, or sources for generated files changed without corresponding changes to the generated files. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
Re: [committed] 2011 and 2012 Copyright year updates
On Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 12:13:32PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote: I never remember to update the copyright years, so I thought I'd have a go. And you were right of course. It ended up being a huge time sink. Anyway, here's my attempt a script to convert to ranges and, if enabled, to include the current year. The script only updates FSF copyright notices and leaves others alone. I've tried my best to make sure that licences and imported FSF sources aren't touched, but I could have missed some cases. Looks reasonable to me, though I'd like to hear richi's and Joseph's opinion too. I've noticed a minor nit: --- gcc.orig/gcc/testsuite/gcc.misc-tests/linkage.exp +++ gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.misc-tests/linkage.exp @@ -1,5 +1,4 @@ -# Copyright (C) 1988, 90-96, 1997, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2007, 2008, 2010, -# 2011, -# 2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc. +# Copyright (C) 90-2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc. That should have been presumably 1988-2012, haven't looked at other similar cases. As for updating to -2013, I think it isn't appropriate for all files, e.g. I'd leave ChangeLog* and various README* files to keep their finish date as is, say ChangeLog.2003 can be just Copyright (c) 2003, doesn't need to be 2003-2013. Perhaps just automatically add -2013 to gcc (except gcc/testsuite) *.[ch], *.md, *.def, *.opt files or so, plus gcc/testsuite *.exp files? E.g. testsuite *.c/*.C files that are Copyright 2004 don't need to be -2013? Also, just a remainder, any Copyright line change in libstdc++-v3/include might potentially require adjustments to libstdc++-v3/testsuite/, because various tests have header line numbers hardcoded in them. Jakub
Re: [committed] 2011 and 2012 Copyright year updates
On Jan 6, 2013, at 4:13 AM, Richard Sandiford rdsandif...@googlemail.com wrote: Anyway, here's my attempt a script to convert to ranges and, if enabled, to include the current year. I don't think we should update to the current year. The script only updates FSF copyright notices and leaves others alone. I've tried my best to make sure that licences and imported FSF sources aren't touched, but I could have missed some cases. I've audited the change… I noticed an inconsistent use of: Copyright (c) 2010 Copyright 1992 Copyright (C) 2010 but that is pre-existing. Also, I noticed a 90-2007, which should canonicalized to 1990-2007, but that is also pre-existing. I did the analysis by case reduction so that like case classes reduce to generalized forms and then I audited all the forms of changes that appeared. This lets me skip quickly the majority of changes and focus in on just the weirdest of the weird quickly and accurately without missing them in the noise of the common cases. Look good. I think we should put it in. I didn't audit upstream or out of tree files. Only the form of the change.
Re: [committed] 2011 and 2012 Copyright year updates
On Jan 6, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net wrote:
I did the analysis by case reduction so that like case classes reduce to
generalized forms and then I audited all the forms of changes that appeared.
This lets me skip quickly the majority of changes and focus in on just the
weirdest of the weird quickly and accurately without missing them in the
noise of the common cases.
Oh, just in case people want to see the last residual:
$ grep '^[-+]' copyright-range-gcc.patch | grep -v '^---' | grep -v '^+++' |
sed 's/.*opyright/Copyright/; s/Free.*/Free/; s/[12][0-9][0-9][0-9], //g;
s/opyright (c)/opyright/; s/opyright (C)/opyright/; s/opyright
[12][0-9][0-9][0-9], */opyright /g; s/[12][0-9][0-9][0-9][,-] *//g' | more |
sort | uniq -c | more
5 -
52 -
1 - 2002 Free
4 - 2007 Free
24 - 2010
2 - 2010 Free
10 - 2010 Free
39 - 2011
8 - 2011 Free
43 - 2011 Free
136 - 2012
31 - 2012 Free
147 - 2012 Free
12 - 2013
1 - 2013 Free
5 - 2013 Free
1 - Foundation, Inc.
706 - Free
1 - Inc.
2 - * 2008
2 - * The Free
1 - * Free
1 -# 2010 Free
3 -# 2011 Free
2 -# 2012
1 -# 2012 Free
14 -# Free
8 -# Free
1 -# The Free
1 -# 2003 Free
1 -# 2008 Free
1 -# 2008 Free
1 -# 2010 Free
12 -# 2011 Free
5 -# 2012
12 -# 2012 Free
54 -# Free
1 -1998 Free
1 -2007 Free
1 -2009 Free
1 -2010 Free
3 -2010 Free
1 -2011
3 -2011 Free
1 -2012
2 -2012 Free
1 -; 2011 Free
2 -; 2012 Free
39 -; Free
2 -;;
1 -;; 2012 Free
7 -;; Free
1 -;; 2011 Free
4 -;; 2012
1 -;; 2012 Free
12 -;; Free
1 -;; 2010 Free
2 -;; 2011 Free
4 -;; 2012
1 -;; 2012 Free
7 -;; 2012 Free
71 -;; Free
1 -@c
1 -@c 2002 Free
2 -@c 2004 Free
1 -@c 2006 Free
2 -@c 2007 Free
1 -@c 2009
2 -@c 2010
2 -@c 2010 Free
2 -@c 2011 Free
8 -@c 2012
1 -@c 2012 Free
1 -@c 2013
25 -@c Free
1 -Foundation, Inc.
7 -Free
1 -Inc.
1 -dnl Free
546 Copyright
1 Copyright 1996
2 Copyright 1996 Free
2 Copyright 1997
4 Copyright 1997 Free
4 Copyright 1998
1 Copyright 1998 - 2012
9 Copyright 1998 Free
1 Copyright 1999
3 Copyright 1999 Free
1 Copyright 1999 The Free
5 Copyright 2001 Free
1 Copyright 2001 The Free
2 Copyright 2002 Free
9 Copyright 2003 Free
1 Copyright 2004
20 Copyright 2004 Free
1 Copyright 2004 The Free
2 Copyright 2005
1 Copyright 2005 , 2012
12 Copyright 2005 Free
1 Copyright 2006
4 Copyright 2006 Free
20 Copyright 2007
1 Copyright 2007 Free
324 Copyright 2007 Free
13 Copyright 2008
64 Copyright 2008 Free
18 Copyright 2009
143 Copyright 2009 Free
80 Copyright 2010
3 Copyright 2010 Free
277 Copyright 2010 Free
1 Copyright 2010. 2011 Free
148 Copyright 2011
1 Copyright 2011 Free
631 Copyright 2011 Free
416 Copyright 2012
16 Copyright 2012 Free
1374 Copyright 2012 Free
6 Copyright 2013
25 Copyright 2013 Free
1 Copyright 90, 91, 92, 2007
2 Copyright 90, 91, 92, 95, 96, 2007
3 Copyright 90-2007 Free
1 Copyright 90-2012 Free
1 Copyright 90-96,
6 Copyright Free
2 Copyrights-gcj 2010
2 Copyrights-gfortran 2010
2 Copyrights-gfortran 2012
2 Copyrights-gfortran} Free
2 Copyrights-go 2012
6 Copyright{}
1 Copyright{} 2005
1 Copyright{} 2005 Free
3 Copyright{} 2010 Free
1 Copyright{} 2011
2 Copyright{} 2011 Free
2 Copyright{} 2012 Free
Of course, this leaves out all the intermediates and audit steps. This is
merely the last step.
Re: [committed] 2011 and 2012 Copyright year updates
Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com writes: On Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 12:13:32PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote: I never remember to update the copyright years, so I thought I'd have a go. And you were right of course. It ended up being a huge time sink. Anyway, here's my attempt a script to convert to ranges and, if enabled, to include the current year. The script only updates FSF copyright notices and leaves others alone. I've tried my best to make sure that licences and imported FSF sources aren't touched, but I could have missed some cases. Looks reasonable to me, though I'd like to hear richi's and Joseph's opinion too. I've noticed a minor nit: --- gcc.orig/gcc/testsuite/gcc.misc-tests/linkage.exp +++ gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.misc-tests/linkage.exp @@ -1,5 +1,4 @@ -# Copyright (C) 1988, 90-96, 1997, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2007, 2008, 2010, -# 2011, -# 2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc. +# Copyright (C) 90-2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc. That should have been presumably 1988-2012, haven't looked at other similar cases. Gah, good catch. Fixed in my local copy. I also added a bit of extra error checking to try to make sure the years were sane. Since it's a big patch, I'll see if there are any more comments before sending an update. As for updating to -2013, I think it isn't appropriate for all files, e.g. I'd leave ChangeLog* and various README* files to keep their finish date as is, say ChangeLog.2003 can be just Copyright (c) 2003, doesn't need to be 2003-2013. Perhaps just automatically add -2013 to gcc (except gcc/testsuite) *.[ch], *.md, *.def, *.opt files or so, plus gcc/testsuite *.exp files? E.g. testsuite *.c/*.C files that are Copyright 2004 don't need to be -2013? Yeah. I'd also tried to avoid touching the gcc tests in this patch, so hopefully the same filter would be OK when adding the extra year. The script applies a similar filter to the libjava testsuite. I wasn't sure what do about libstdc++ though, since its testsuite seems less like a random collection of tests. I'll cross-post any libstdc++ stuff to the libstdc++ list once the GCC side has settled down. I think we should also update the year in the documentation (possibly including the READMEs). There are also awk scripts, random shell scripts, OCaml generators, etc., so it's probably easier to list what should be left out rather than what should be included. The current GNU guidelines seem to actively encourage a blanket update. Agreed on the historical changelogs though. It does seem silly to update those. Also, just a remainder, any Copyright line change in libstdc++-v3/include might potentially require adjustments to libstdc++-v3/testsuite/, because various tests have header line numbers hardcoded in them. OK, thanks for the heads up. The libstdc++ and libjava changes the ones I'm least certain about. Richard
Re: [committed] 2011 and 2012 Copyright year updates
Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net writes: On Jan 6, 2013, at 4:13 AM, Richard Sandiford rdsandif...@googlemail.com wrote: Anyway, here's my attempt a script to convert to ranges and, if enabled, to include the current year. I don't think we should update to the current year. It just seems easier than having to remember to update the copyright whenever you change a file. The GNU guidelines seem to actively encourage it now. The script only updates FSF copyright notices and leaves others alone. I've tried my best to make sure that licences and imported FSF sources aren't touched, but I could have missed some cases. I've audited the change… I noticed an inconsistent use of: Copyright (c) 2010 Copyright 1992 Copyright (C) 2010 but that is pre-existing. Also, I noticed a 90-2007, which should canonicalized to 1990-2007, but that is also pre-existing. Thanks, I updated my local copy to handle both of these. Richard
[committed] 2011 and 2012 Copyright year updates
Hi! I've run a script to notice gcc maintained files with FSF copyright that have been modified in 2011 and/or 2012 (according to svn log, ignoring r168438 and r184997 commits), but didn't have years 2011 and/or 2012 included in Copyright lines. I've kept the preexisting style, so where year ranges were used, updated those if needed, if not, kept the year lists. Jakub Copyright.updates.bz2 Description: BZip2 compressed data
Re: [committed] 2011 and 2012 Copyright year updates
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:54 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote: Hi! I've run a script to notice gcc maintained files with FSF copyright that have been modified in 2011 and/or 2012 (according to svn log, ignoring r168438 and r184997 commits), but didn't have years 2011 and/or 2012 included in Copyright lines. I've kept the preexisting style, so where year ranges were used, updated those if needed, if not, kept the year lists. Can't we just move to ranges of years now that the FSF approves of them. They even approve of ranges where a file was not touched during that year. This seems better than listing all the years out. Thanks, Andrew
Re: [committed] 2011 and 2012 Copyright year updates
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 08:44:13AM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote: On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:54 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote: I've run a script to notice gcc maintained files with FSF copyright that have been modified in 2011 and/or 2012 (according to svn log, ignoring r168438 and r184997 commits), but didn't have years 2011 and/or 2012 included in Copyright lines. I've kept the preexisting style, so where year ranges were used, updated those if needed, if not, kept the year lists. Can't we just move to ranges of years now that the FSF approves of them. They even approve of ranges where a file was not touched during that year. This seems better than listing all the years out. If somebody is willing to do the conversion, sure, but even with some scripting that is going to be lots of work. Even this patch took more than 6 hours of svn log, some scripting and a few hours of manual work, while the conversion would take IMHO more than that. Jakub
