Update copyright year in Active Resource #458

Closed
wants to merge 10 commits into
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
10 participants
@vijaydev
Member

vijaydev commented May 8, 2011

Update copyright year to 2011 in Active Resource

@spastorino

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@spastorino

spastorino May 8, 2011

Owner

This should be 2006-2010 and also you can do the same on AS :)

Owner

spastorino commented May 8, 2011

This should be 2006-2010 and also you can do the same on AS :)

@vijaydev

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@vijaydev

vijaydev May 9, 2011

Member

Most of them are up to 2011. Any reason why this should be only up to 2010 ?

Member

vijaydev commented May 9, 2011

Most of them are up to 2011. Any reason why this should be only up to 2010 ?

@guilleiguaran

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@guilleiguaran

guilleiguaran May 9, 2011

Owner

I think CHANGELOG can explain why:

*Rails 3.1.0 (unreleased)*

* No changes

*Rails 3.0.2 (unreleased)*

* No changes

*Rails 3.0.1 (October 15, 2010)*

* No Changes, just a version bump.
...

https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/master/activeresource/CHANGELOG

Also looks like some CHANGELOGs are outdated :)

Owner

guilleiguaran commented May 9, 2011

I think CHANGELOG can explain why:

*Rails 3.1.0 (unreleased)*

* No changes

*Rails 3.0.2 (unreleased)*

* No changes

*Rails 3.0.1 (October 15, 2010)*

* No Changes, just a version bump.
...

https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/master/activeresource/CHANGELOG

Also looks like some CHANGELOGs are outdated :)

@fxn

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@fxn

fxn May 9, 2011

Owner

Even if there are no changes (there are, check git log), what's wrong with updating the copyright range? You do not hold the copyright in 2011?

Owner

fxn commented May 9, 2011

Even if there are no changes (there are, check git log), what's wrong with updating the copyright range? You do not hold the copyright in 2011?

@asanghi

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@asanghi

asanghi May 9, 2011

Contributor

i suspect @spastorino just had a typo. Gingerly suggesting that he may have meant 2006-2011.

Contributor

asanghi commented May 9, 2011

i suspect @spastorino just had a typo. Gingerly suggesting that he may have meant 2006-2011.

@guilleiguaran

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@guilleiguaran

guilleiguaran May 9, 2011

Owner

I agree with @fxn

Owner

guilleiguaran commented May 9, 2011

I agree with @fxn

@spastorino

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@spastorino

spastorino May 9, 2011

Owner

I've tried to say 2006-2011, sorry for the typo.

Owner

spastorino commented May 9, 2011

I've tried to say 2006-2011, sorry for the typo.

@grimen

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@grimen

grimen May 9, 2011

Awesome! I don't know how much time I've wasted on "not knowing CSRF-token was not verified" caused by a sloppy mistake (usually by me).

grimen commented on 59705de May 9, 2011

Awesome! I don't know how much time I've wasted on "not knowing CSRF-token was not verified" caused by a sloppy mistake (usually by me).

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@nilbus

nilbus Sep 13, 2011

Contributor

Wishing this would have made it into 2.3.x

Contributor

nilbus replied Sep 13, 2011

Wishing this would have made it into 2.3.x

@vijaydev

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@vijaydev

vijaydev May 9, 2011

Member

Ok! I'm closing this. I'm not sure what I did or what caused all these commits to become part of this pull request. Will create a new one.

Member

vijaydev commented May 9, 2011

Ok! I'm closing this. I'm not sure what I did or what caused all these commits to become part of this pull request. Will create a new one.

@vijaydev vijaydev closed this May 9, 2011

@et

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@et

et May 9, 2011

@vijaydev, you should create a branch for pull requests and not work on your master branch. What I believe is happening is you're updating (pulling or fetching/merging) your master branch and github is adding those commits as part of your pull request.

They made doc changes like this ridiculously easy pretty recently -- https://github.com/blog/844-forking-with-the-edit-button

et commented May 9, 2011

@vijaydev, you should create a branch for pull requests and not work on your master branch. What I believe is happening is you're updating (pulling or fetching/merging) your master branch and github is adding those commits as part of your pull request.

They made doc changes like this ridiculously easy pretty recently -- https://github.com/blog/844-forking-with-the-edit-button

@vijaydev

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@vijaydev

vijaydev May 9, 2011

Member

@et Thanks! That's what happened. Will change how I send pull requests from now on.

New pull request here: #468

Member

vijaydev commented May 9, 2011

@et Thanks! That's what happened. Will change how I send pull requests from now on.

New pull request here: #468

tomstuart pushed a commit to econsultancy/rails that referenced this pull request May 17, 2011

test cases for record.to_xml [#458 state:resolved]
Signed-off-by: José Valim <jose.valim@gmail.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment