Ben Elliston writes:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 12:12:14PM -0800, Bruce Korb wrote:
>
>> If you update a chapter, the book copyright date is updated. Makes more
>> sense
>> to me.
>
> OK. That's fine with me, then.
Thanks, I installed the patch and added libdecnumber to the list
of default direc
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 12:12:14PM -0800, Bruce Korb wrote:
> If you update a chapter, the book copyright date is updated. Makes more sense
> to me.
OK. That's fine with me, then.
Cheers, Ben
--
"These man-made problems have man-made solutions. Unfortunately, the
men and women needed to solv
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Ben Elliston wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 06:59:38PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> These days the guideline encourage updating all files, even ones
>> that haven't changed, so I was hoping we could do that gcc-wide.
>
> If that is what the guidelines say,
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 06:59:38PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> These days the guideline encourage updating all files, even ones
> that haven't changed, so I was hoping we could do that gcc-wide.
If that is what the guidelines say, then I will not object. I am just
a bit surprised that you
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 2:19 AM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> Not exactly the most exciting patches, and certainly not worth more than
>> one ping, but:
>>
>> libgcc copyright
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-01/msg00642.html
>
> This is OK.
Thanks!
> Don
Ben Elliston writes:
> On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 10:19:47AM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
>> libdecnumber copyright
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-01/msg00647.html
>
> I've refreshed my memory on the use of year ranges in the copyright
> notice (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-how
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 2:19 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Not exactly the most exciting patches, and certainly not worth more than
> one ping, but:
>
> libgcc copyright
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-01/msg00642.html
This is OK.
Thanks.
Don't these count as obvious at this point?
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 10:19:47AM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> libdecnumber copyright
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-01/msg00647.html
I've refreshed my memory on the use of year ranges in the copyright
notice (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html). Looking at the
Change
On 02/03/13 09:42, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> You missed the file header.
>
> That was deliberately in patch 2 though.
OK.
>> Why bother with dual update issues?
>
> Well, the point is that patch 2 is scripted.
OK:
> echo "$copyright" | sed 's/(C) 2002-/(C) /'
and now you print the right da
Bruce Korb writes:
> On 02/03/13 02:19, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Not exactly the most exciting patches, and certainly not worth more than
>> one ping, but:
>>
>> fixincludes copyright
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-01/msg00442.html
>
> You missed the file header.
That was delib
On 02/03/13 02:19, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Not exactly the most exciting patches, and certainly not worth more than
> one ping, but:
>
> fixincludes copyright
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-01/msg00442.html
You missed the file header. Why bother with dual update issues?
> --- m
Not exactly the most exciting patches, and certainly not worth more than
one ping, but:
fixincludes copyright
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-01/msg00442.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-01/msg00443.html
libgcc copyright
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-01/msg006
12 matches
Mail list logo
