Re: Preferred format of Copyright statement

[RDBrown at mira dot net]

> For the patches supplied I found it easiest to run the script,
> correct the (few) errors it diagnosed and then walk through the changes
> doing some minor reformatting. The ChangeLog entries took almost as
> long. Since the changes are mainly in comments a big bang approach is
> less risky than for PARAMS. ...

If a binutils release is due soon and this is worth doing before
the release I'd better move.  Or would it be better to wait until
the early Feb and the binutils release code freeze before standardizing
Copyright statements?

> I need to submit a patch to automake which has and generates
> an embedded year range.
(Automake development sources have been updated.)

> From: Andrew Cagney 
...
> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 6:08 AM
> Subject: Re: Preferred format of Copyright statement



> > > I know this has a tendency to line-wrap, but so what?  No human will
> > > ever care.  So we might as well make it completely correct.

> > Ok, will produce that form.
> >   Given that the first attempt over gdb
> > gives a patch file of ~900k touching 1725 files, would it be more useful
> > to provide patches for the few percent of cases needing manual fixes and
> > provide the script to be run when the maintainer finds it convenient?
> > Or should it only fix those with ranges or 2-digit years and leave (C)
> > removal where the year list is Ok?
> > 
> > (Trying to conserve maintainer think time, not be a WOFTAM).

> (Yes I know your e-mail was posted a month ago :-().

...
> ... You won't need maintainer approval for this
> change.  Just give a weeks notice on the big jumbo change.

=> move into the late 1990s and start using CVS with a temporary
write permission? Both gdb & binutils in one hit?

Regards,
Rodney Brown