Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>
> David,
>
> I'm not a lawyer, etc, but it looks to me that 1999-@year@ is better
> then just @year@.
+1
--
Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be
able to give birth to a dancing star.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi Vadim, i was just aligning license.xml with LICENSE.
The former had it hard-coded. The token @year@ is
defined in build.xml to expand to the date-range "1999-2001".
Yes, "year" was a strange choice of token names, but that is
what is currently used.
--David
Vadim said:
> I'm not a lawyer, etc,
David,
I'm not a lawyer, etc, but it looks to me that 1999-@year@ is better
then just @year@.
What do you think? :)
Vadim
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 8:32 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: cvs commit: xml
