From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28207 invoked by alias); 4 Jan 2012 16:19:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 28189 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Jan 2012 16:19:37 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net (HELO elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net) (209.86.89.63) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:19:20 +0000 Received: from [70.170.59.51] (helo=macbook2.local) by elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1RiTYd-0007Mf-MN for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 11:19:19 -0500 Message-ID: <4F047C06.8030000@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:19:00 -0000 From: Stan Shebs User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: one more question about year ranges in copyright notices... References: <20120104094649.GV2730@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20120104094649.GV2730@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: ae6f8838ff913eba0cc1426638a40ef67e972de0d01da940f11ab3640d9d0a3a9fa29fa3a61eb51c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-01/txt/msg00148.txt.bz2 On 1/4/12 1:46 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote: > Hello, > > I thought I was giong to do my best to forget about this as soon as > the copyright notices would be updated, but what do you guys think > of Jan's remark: > >>> + 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991-1993, 1999, 2000, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 >>> + >>> +... is abbreviated into: >>> + >>> + 1986, 1988-1989, 1991-1993, 1999-2000, 2007-2011 > [...] >> IIUC this would allow us to write 1986-2011 everywhere as the GDB >> package was nontrivially modified each of these years. Just restating >> Joseph. > Not totally critical, but I am seduced. I found that the formatting > of many copyright headers look a bit ugly before the list of years > shown in the notice is long enough that "Free Software Foundation, Inc." > would not fit on the rest of the line. > I agree with making it 1986-2012 everywhere uniformly. For files with new code, it would be nice if the first year in the pair could be the year of the file's creation - it's a little jarring to see something like tic6x-tdep.c with a 1986 date at the top of it. On the other hand, a copyright range like 2005-2012 makes it unclear if one is trying to say that that a particular file was modified each year in the range, or that it's "inheriting" the range from GDB as a whole. Stan