I will test this this evening :) Looks nice tho :)

ok, thanks. Just have one question the BUILD in version.php is used for what?

I don't think it is being used to the best of my knowledge. @mbabker ?

If we don't already have it, it would be nice to see something like this for the copyright dates too.
The more we can automate the better,

I have tested this item successfully on 0e811db

Tested with Windows Powershell + windows Bash

If we don't already have it, it would be nice to see something like this for the copyright dates too.

@infograf768 usually does that

I still want to know why that copyright statement has to be in every file
(years inclusive) and can't be moved into a LICENSE or COPYRIGHT file.
Especially because there's no way to claim copyright in 2005 of a file
created in 2015.

On Friday, April 8, 2016, Walt Sorensen notifications@github.com wrote:

If we don't already have it, it would be nice to see something like this
for the copyright dates too.
The more we can automate the better,

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#9804 (comment)

Referencing GNU's guide on it:

https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Notices.html

"You should maintain a proper copyright notice and a license notice in each nontrivial file in the package. (Any file more than ten lines long is nontrivial for this purpose.) This includes header files and interface definitions for building or running the program, documentation files, and any supporting files. If a file has been explicitly placed in the public domain, then instead of a copyright notice, it should have a notice saying explicitly that it is in the public domain."

So the quick answer is - yes.

Referencing further background:

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/faqs/copyright-protection/

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/copyright

https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law

The reasoning is that with current copyright laws the copyright holds for X years.

The X is different from country to country but in most cases Copyright based on publication and creation dates (as ours is) is 50-70 years.

There is an extensive list here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright_lengths

So now the question remains - Joomla was originally released in 2005 - does anyone care about Joomla copyright in 2055 or 2075 depending the country?

I will _assume_ that WP, Drupal et. al. are not stipulating the year because they dont think the copyright is relevant 50 or 70 years into the future.

But if we follow the GNU guide it should be there.

So i hope that gives some background and insights - as for IF we loose copyright by not stating it - i dont _think_ so, considering Google etc. and many others does not do it, it just prevents the copyright duration to be a runningly updated 70 years (as most common for software).

Hmm, I am not sure if Jean Marie is willing to update the copyrights manually for the next 70 years

Year by year I meant

So it's not good enough to say "copyright OSM, see COPYRIGHT.txt for
additional details" in the file headers like we basically do with the
license? Every file has to have a copyright claim and said claim uses the
project's copyright dates versus the date (year) the code would first be
copyrighted to OSM? That's what irks me, I totally get having the
copyright claims but I still don't get the WHY as to it being required in
the current format.

On Friday, April 8, 2016, George Wilson notifications@github.com wrote:

Referencing GNU's guide on it:
https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Notices.html

"You should maintain a proper copyright notice and a license notice in each nontrivial file in the package. (Any file more than ten lines long is nontrivial for this purpose.) This includes header files and interface definitions for building or running the program, documentation files, and any supporting files. If a file has been explicitly placed in the public domain, then instead of a copyright notice, it should have a notice saying explicitly that it is in the public domain."

So the quick answer is - yes.

Referencing further background:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/faqs/copyright-protection/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/copyright
https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law

The reasoning is that with current copyright laws the copyright holds for X years.

The X is different from country to country but in most cases Copyright based on publication and creation dates (as ours is) is 50-70 years.

There is an extensive list here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright_lengths

So now the question remains - Joomla was originally released in 2005 - does anyone care about Joomla copyright in 2055 or 2075 depending the country?

I will assume that WP, Drupal et. al. are not stipulating the year because they dont think the copyright is relevant 50 or 70 years into the future.

But if we follow the GNU guide it should be there.

So i hope that gives some background and insights - as for IF we loose copyright by not stating it - i dont think so, considering Google etc. and many others does not do it, it just prevents the copyright duration to be a runningly updated 70 years (as most common for software).

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#9804 (comment)

@andrepereiradasilva Sorry I cannot help with testing. Still use my remote shared host for testing where I have my website on, and there I cannot run CLI because of restrictions from service provider.

no problem, i think @wilsonge will also test

if you want to test other PR , i have some needing tests https://github.com/joomla/joomla-cms/pulls/andrepereiradasilva

I have tested this item unsuccessfully on 0e811db

My syntax was

php bump.php -v 4.0.1 - c "Joomla 4 the next wonder of the earth"

The following errors were found when checking the files
/administrator/manifests/packages/pkg_en-GB.xml

<version>4.0.1.1</version>

/libraries/cms/version/version.php

const CODENAME = 'Unicorn';

The following errors were found when checking the files
/administrator/manifests/packages/pkg_en-GB.xml
4.0.1.1

That was an @infograf768 request.
As i told before there are inconsistencies in the en-GB language pack. The one in PR #9835 and the fact that the en-GB language extensions manifests have 3 version digits when all other language packs have 4 version digits.
IMO, for consistency, en-GB language should behave exactly like the other language packs, with the simple difference that cannot be uninstalled, i.e., the 3 extensions (2 language + 1 package) are blocked. But that is other decision.

/libraries/cms/version/version.php
const CODENAME = 'Unicorn';

You cli command is not correct.
It should be (note the non existent space in the "-c" option):

php bump.php -v 4.0.1 -c "Joomla 4 the next wonder of the earth"

I have tested this item successfully on 0e811db

Now I remember the language issue and good spot on my typo

All good

RTC

I know its a NEW feature so should be 3.6 but as this is an internal tool only and not distributed I am setting it as 3.5.2

@brianteeman
The TTs language xmls version can be either 3.x.x or 3.x.x.x (where the last x shows the version of the pack installed or available). This is used only for display. en-GB does not need the 4th digit for the display.
BUT the pkg.xml for the TTs has to be with 4 digits to be used in the cron job to propose updates.
As this "may" be a model for users, I indeed suggested to keep there the same format as the TT's one.