On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 08:48:52PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu. OK to install?
Ok, thanks.
Jakub
On Mon, 7 Jan 2013, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> "Joseph S. Myers" writes:
> > On Sun, 6 Jan 2013, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >
> >> Anyway, here's my attempt a script to convert to ranges and, if enabled,
> >> to include the current year. The script only updates FSF copyright notices
> >> and lea
HI,
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> It was just a question of whether to submit the fixincludes/ and gcc/
> parts as one patch (as I'd originally done) or as two separate patches.
> Two separate patches probably makes more sense and I think is what
> Joseph was suggest
Bruce Korb writes:
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>>> I think a patch for each directory will need posting separately for review
>>> of such things as whether any imported / generated files are mistakenly
>>> changed.
>>
>> So fixincludes/ separate from gcc/, and ev
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>> I think a patch for each directory will need posting separately for review
>> of such things as whether any imported / generated files are mistakenly
>> changed.
>
> So fixincludes/ separate from gcc/, and every library separate? OK.
S
"Joseph S. Myers" writes:
> On Sun, 6 Jan 2013, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
>> Anyway, here's my attempt a script to convert to ranges and, if enabled,
>> to include the current year. The script only updates FSF copyright notices
>> and leaves others alone. I've tried my best to make sure that li
On Sun, 6 Jan 2013, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Anyway, here's my attempt a script to convert to ranges and, if enabled,
> to include the current year. The script only updates FSF copyright notices
> and leaves others alone. I've tried my best to make sure that licences
> and imported FSF sources
On Sun, 6 Jan 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 12:13:32PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > I never remember to update the copyright years, so I thought I'd have a go.
> > And you were right of course. It ended up being a huge time sink.
> >
> > Anyway, here's my attempt a
Mike Stump writes:
> On Jan 6, 2013, at 4:13 AM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> Anyway, here's my attempt a script to convert to ranges and, if enabled,
>> to include the current year.
>
> I don't think we should update to the current year.
It just seems easier than having to remember to update t
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 12:13:32PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> I never remember to update the copyright years, so I thought I'd have a go.
>> And you were right of course. It ended up being a huge time sink.
>>
>> Anyway, here's my attempt a script to convert to ra
On Jan 6, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> I did the analysis by case reduction so that like case classes reduce to
> generalized forms and then I audited all the forms of changes that appeared.
> This lets me skip quickly the majority of changes and focus in on just the
> weirdest of th
On Jan 6, 2013, at 4:13 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Anyway, here's my attempt a script to convert to ranges and, if enabled,
> to include the current year.
I don't think we should update to the current year.
> The script only updates FSF copyright notices
> and leaves others alone. I've tri
On Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 12:13:32PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> I never remember to update the copyright years, so I thought I'd have a go.
> And you were right of course. It ended up being a huge time sink.
>
> Anyway, here's my attempt a script to convert to ranges and, if enabled,
> to in
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 08:44:13AM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:54 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > I've run a script to notice gcc maintained files with FSF copyright that
> > have been modified in 2011 and/or 2012 (according to svn log, ignoring
> > r168438 and r184997 comm
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:54 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I've run a script to notice gcc maintained files with FSF copyright that
> have been modified in 2011 and/or 2012 (according to svn log, ignoring
> r168438 and r184997 commits), but didn't have years 2011 and/or 2012
> included in Copy
Hi!
I've run a script to notice gcc maintained files with FSF copyright that
have been modified in 2011 and/or 2012 (according to svn log, ignoring
r168438 and r184997 commits), but didn't have years 2011 and/or 2012
included in Copyright lines. I've kept the preexisting style, so
where year rang
16 matches
Mail list logo
