Ross Gardler wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >Author: crossley > >Date: Sun Mar 4 23:09:18 2007 > >New Revision: 514581 > > > >URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=514581 > >Log: > >Already 2007 already. > > > >Modified: > > forrest/trunk/site-author/skinconf.xml > > > >Modified: forrest/trunk/site-author/skinconf.xml > >URL: > >http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/forrest/trunk/site-author/skinconf.xml?view=diff&rev=514581&r1=514580&r2=514581 > >============================================================================== > >--- forrest/trunk/site-author/skinconf.xml (original) > >+++ forrest/trunk/site-author/skinconf.xml Sun Mar 4 23:09:18 2007 > >@@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ > > <favicon-url>favicon.ico</favicon-url> > > > > <!-- The following are used to construct a copyright statement --> > >- <year>2002-2006</year> > >+ <year>2002-2007</year> > > <vendor>The Apache Software Foundation.</vendor> > > <copyright-link>http://www.apache.org/licenses/</copyright-link> > > > There was loads of discussion about this on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] lists > in 2005 to 2006 changeover. My recollection of the conclusion was that > we only change the the copyright year if there is a significant change > in the file, not just because the date has rolled over.
In general i agree. That is also one big benefit from the new source headers. However this change was for the generated pages of our website. Others projects (e.g. jackrabbit.apache.org) do it that way too. -David
