From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19308 invoked by alias); 31 Mar 2006 19:47:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 19300 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Mar 2006 19:47:28 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 19:47:26 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k2VJlPTn007862; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:47:25 -0500 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k2VJlN8U012555; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:47:24 -0500 Received: from [172.16.24.50] (bluegiant.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k2VJlLhg009499; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:47:22 -0500 Message-ID: <442D8748.5020502@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 22:19:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.4.1 (X11/20050929) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Update copyright dates in gdb.texinfo References: <442C8E68.5090700@redhat.com> <20060331135551.GA27463@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-03/txt/msg00390.txt.bz2 Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 08:55:51 -0500 >>From: Daniel Jacobowitz >>Cc: Michael Snyder , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com >> >> >>>Yes, thanks. But I thought we all agreed that copyright years need to >>>be changed only as part of preparing a release, and that at that time >>>all files need to be stamped with the release year. Did I miss >>>something? >> >>Isn't it the other way around? > > > I didn't think it was. > > Anyone, this is nothing worth arguing about. > Anyway, committed. Thanks.