Eric Blake wrote: > I see no reason to remove years that were added during a global year update.
Listing the years individually gave at least a certain idea about whether a file is "active", i.e. heavily used and maintained, or on the bitrot slope. Well, you can also see that by peeking into the git history. I gave my ok for the global year update in December, but now I find that I actually liked the previous way of updating the list of years incrementally, not globally. Bruno
