On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 04:43:34PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 04/25/2016 04:37 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > >On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:52:53PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > >>Dear Stephen Warren, > >> > >>In message <571e733a.1060...@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote: > >[snip] > >>>Unfortunately we've (NVIDIA at least) been a little lax making sure the > >>>NVIDIA copyright messages are kept up-to-date when editing files, hence > >>>why this series had to change a lot of them for the first time recently. > >>>If we went back and re-wrote all of git history paying strict attention > >>>to the copyright notice dates and formatting, I imagine the set of > >>>copyright-related changes in this series would be much smaller. > > > >I'm quoting Wolfgang's email here, but, yes, keeping the copyright > >notices correct is important. Now, what do you mean by would be > >smaller? > > Personally I want to spend my time coding rather than dealing with > licensing. As such, it's easy to forget to update the dates in > copyright notices when changing files, or to put the correct > information into new files when creating new ones (often by just > cutting/pasting some other file with similar issues). If we had done > that 100% correctly in every commit across history, my inclination > is that more files would already have an NVIDIA copyright message, > and/or already have 2016 in the date, and hence this series wouldn't > include an edit to those messages since they'd already be > up-to-date. Still, I have no searched all history to confirm that; > it's just my gut instinct.
Right, OK. So you're saying you may, in some cases, be adding 2016 to files you haven't touched this year yet? -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot