This bug doesn't seem to have been resolved, even after the hardy docs have
gone up.
I.e. these pages:
http://doc.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/about-ubuntu/C/index.html
http://doc.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/serverguide/C/index.html
still say they are 2 years old:
"Copyright © 2004, 2005, 2006 Canonical Ltd. and me
This bug was fixed in the package kubuntu-docs - 8.04-2
---
kubuntu-docs (8.04-2) hardy; urgency=low
* Latest checkout of docs from bzr
* Added lintian overrides file (LP: #194843)
* Fixed the firefox startpage fonts (LP: #195590)
* Updated firefox startpage translations (LP:
This bug was fixed in the package ubuntu-docs - 8.03.2 in Ubuntu hardy.
** Changed in: ubuntu-doc
Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released
--
copyright dates not being updated
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/192202
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, w
Thanks, Rich!
I still think that marking the version information for in-development
documentation would be very helpful.
Surely we want people to be able to comment on this documentation in
ways that make it clear what version they are commenting on, so the
writer can easily tell if the issue has
Just committed a fix to the Kubuntu branch. Thanks for the report Neal!
** Also affects: kubuntu-docs (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Changed in: kubuntu-docs (Ubuntu)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Richard Johnson (nixternal)
Status: New => Fix Committed
--
copyr
The copyright portion of this bug is valid.
The rest of the bug isn't really. http://doc.ubuntu.com/ is the in-
development documentation. The live, complete documentation is at
http://help.ubuntu.com/ and I think makes it clear which version of the
documentation you're looking it.
That http://do
I've amended the copyright notice to 2008 and merged it across all
branches (we should strive to keep common files the same across all
branches).
I don't think we need to list past years, just 2008 is enough.
** Changed in: ubuntu-doc
Status: Confirmed => Fix Committed
--
copyright dates
Hi,
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Dean Sas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Neal McBurnett wrote:
> > I still think that marking the version information for in-development
> > documentation would be very helpful.
No, I don't agree. As Dean has said, the site at doc.ubuntu.com is
always up to dat
Neal McBurnett wrote:
> I still think that marking the version information for in-development
> documentation would be very helpful.
> Surely we want people to be able to comment on this documentation in
> ways that make it clear what version they are commenting on, so the
> writer can easily tell
