From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Copyright information in source files |
Date: | 2019-11-24 12:48:05 |
Message-ID: | 20191124124805.GB2266@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 03:42:26PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, it'd be nice to have some greater consistency there. My own
> thought about it is that it's rare to have a file that's *completely*
> de novo code, and can be guaranteed to stay that way --- more usually
> there is some amount of copying&pasting, and then you have to wonder
> how much of that material could be traced back to Berkeley. So I
> prefer to err on the side of including their copyright. That line of
> argument basically leads to the conclusion that all the copyright tags
> should be identical, which doesn't seem like an unreasonable rule.
Agreed. Doing that is also a no-brainer when adding new files into
the tree or for your own, separate, modules and that's FWIW the way of
doing things I tend to follow.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-11-24 12:53:16 | Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3? |
Previous Message | Ranier Vilela | 2019-11-24 12:47:40 | [PATCH] Style: fix function declaration |