From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@cygnus.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@is.elta.co.il>
Cc: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@cygnus.com>, Per Bothner <per@bothner.com>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: PATCH: partial merge of dwarf2.h
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 08:15:00 -0000
Message-id: <15143.33679.39478.78739@kwikemart.cygnus.com>
References: <15142.34988.789826.392828@kwikemart.cygnus.com> <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010613120403.16126X-100000@is>
X-SW-Source: 2001-06/msg00259.html

Eli Zaretskii writes:
 > 
 > On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Elena Zannoni wrote:
 > 
 > > Per Bothner writes:
 > >  > Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@cygnus.com> writes:
 > >  > 
 > >  > > Shouldn't the copyright years include 2001 as well?
 > >  > 
 > >  > Well, the gcc/dwarf2.h doesn't, and this is basically a merge
 > >  > from that.  (There are some formatting differences, and there
 > >  > are also some extensions in the binutils version.  I'm leaving those
 > >  > as is for now.)
 > > 
 > > Ok, you haven't changed anything. But still, the file itself has been
 > > touched. Hmm, I don't know what the rules are in this case.
 > 
 > The rules are that the Copyright notice should mention years when
 > someone worked on a released version of a file.  So if the changes
 > were done by GCC maintainers only in 2000, I think it is okay not to
 > include 2001.
 > 

Thanks for clarifying this, Eli.
I withdraw my objection.

Elena