Title: RE: Preferred format of Copyright statement





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. Once the distraction of Roy & HG is over I should be able to
supply patches with a few days turn around at most, so whenever it
is convenient for you guys.


I need to submit a patch to automake which has and generates
an embedded year range.


-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Cagney [ mailto:ac131313@cygnus.com ]
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 6:08 AM
To: RDBrown@mira.net; RodneyBrown@mynd.com
Cc: Geoff Keating; gdb@sources.redhat.com
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 :-().


Could I suggest a multi-step process like Kevin is doing to clean up
PARAMS.  I'd suggest doing the automated changes and then as a later
pass, do the hand changes.  You won't need maintainer approval for this
change.  Just give a weeks notice on the big jumbo change.


        enjoy,
                Andrew


PS: I my take on how to format copyright is that IanC's guideline is
simply too complicated for us programming types - we're a simple bunch
:-)