On 1/6/15, 6:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby writes:
On 1/6/15, 3:30 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
I dont know why it is really needed but maybe for the files that have
identical copyrights one could simple reference to the COPYRIGHT file we
already have in the tree?
+1
Unless either o
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> On 01/06/2015 10:12 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > This makes me wonder however how wise it is to update the copyright
> > notices in every single file in the repo. Why do we need this? Why not
> > abolish the practice and live forever with most files having copyrigh
Jim Nasby writes:
> On 1/6/15, 3:30 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
>> I dont know why it is really needed but maybe for the files that have
>> identical copyrights one could simple reference to the COPYRIGHT file we
>> already have in the tree?
> +1
Unless either of you is a copyright lawyer, y
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 1/6/15, 3:30 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
>>
>> I dont know why it is really needed but maybe for the files that have
>> identical copyrights one could simple reference to the COPYRIGHT file we
>> already have in the tree?
>
>
> +1
>
> Also,
On 1/6/15, 3:30 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
I dont know why it is really needed but maybe for the files that have
identical copyrights one could simple reference to the COPYRIGHT file we
already have in the tree?
+1
Also, now that we're on git it wouldn't be that hard to add commit hooks t
On 01/06/2015 10:12 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 08:46:19PM +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
I will run the script today. I didn't do it earlier because I want to
be current on reading community email before doing it.
>>>
>>> hmm is it int
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 06:12:30PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 08:46:19PM +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> > > > I will run the script today. I didn't do it earlier because I want to
> > > > be current on reading community email before doing
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 08:46:19PM +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> > > I will run the script today. I didn't do it earlier because I want to
> > > be current on reading community email before doing it.
> >
> > hmm is it intentional that the commit also changed other fi
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 08:46:19PM +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> > I will run the script today. I didn't do it earlier because I want to
> > be current on reading community email before doing it.
>
> hmm is it intentional that the commit also changed other files?
>
> looks like the commit
On 01/06/2015 04:19 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 01:45:37PM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 03, 2015 at 09:54:16PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Shouldn't we update the copyright notices to 2015 for PGDG like in
>>> 7e04792? I mean those things ma
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 01:45:37PM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2015 at 09:54:16PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Shouldn't we update the copyright notices to 2015 for PGDG like in
> > 7e04792? I mean those things mainly:
> > Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2014, Pos
Hi all,
Shouldn't we update the copyright notices to 2015 for PGDG like in
7e04792? I mean those things mainly:
Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2014, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
Regards,
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to you
12 matches
Mail list logo
