Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Dynamically update the year in the footer #17328

Open
wants to merge 7 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

MomentQYC
Copy link
Contributor

Dynamically update the year in the footer

Pull Request Checklist

  • Pull request is based on the develop branch
  • Pull request includes a changelog file. The entry should:
    • Be a short description of your change which makes sense to users. "Fixed a bug that prevented receiving messages from other servers." instead of "Moved X method from EventStore to EventWorkerStore.".
    • Use markdown where necessary, mostly for code blocks.
    • End with either a period (.) or an exclamation mark (!).
    • Start with a capital letter.
    • Feel free to credit yourself, by adding a sentence "Contributed by @github_username." or "Contributed by [Your Name]." to the end of the entry.
  • Code style is correct
    (run the linters)

@MomentQYC MomentQYC requested a review from a team as a code owner June 19, 2024 06:46
@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLAassistant commented Jun 19, 2024

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

@anoadragon453
Copy link
Member

Hi @MomentQYC, thanks for your PR!

I'm just checking with our legal team whether we're allowed to do this 😋 (because it would be convenient).

@anoadragon453 anoadragon453 removed the request for review from a team June 19, 2024 09:04
Copy link
Member

@anoadragon453 anoadragon453 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So it turns out that the copyright date in the footer of the website should reflect either:

  1. The original publication date only (so, just © 2023), or
  2. The original publication date to (-) the date the content on the page was most recently edited (© 2023-2024).

Since the content of this page isn't actually being updated dynamically, then the copyright header doesn't need to be updated either. We can either leave the date as © 2023, or update the footer (© 2023-X) whenever the page is edited.

Personally I'm leaning towards 1. (the current state) as it's less work, but I appreciate that it's then a magnet for people wanting to update it. I also thought that copyright dates in website footers should always reflect the current year!

I think the best thing to do would to add a page to our documentation about copyright headers and footers repeating what I've explained above, and then link to that from here (and any other related spots in the codebase). If you'd like to take that on, go for it! Otherwise I accept that it's probably more work than you signed up for.

And again, we appreciate the effort of the original PR :)

@MomentQYC
Copy link
Contributor Author

So it turns out that the copyright date in the footer of the website should reflect either:

  1. The original publication date only (so, just © 2023), or
  2. The original publication date to (-) the date the content on the page was most recently edited (© 2023-2024).

Since the content of this page isn't actually being updated dynamically, then the copyright header doesn't need to be updated either. We can either leave the date as © 2023, or update the footer (© 2023-X) whenever the page is edited.

Personally I'm leaning towards 1. (the current state) as it's less work, but I appreciate that it's then a magnet for people wanting to update it. I also thought that copyright dates in website footers should always reflect the current year!

I think the best thing to do would to add a page to our documentation about copyright headers and footers repeating what I've explained above, and then link to that from here (and any other related spots in the codebase). If you'd like to take that on, go for it! Otherwise I accept that it's probably more work than you signed up for.

And again, we appreciate the effort of the original PR :)

I apologize for the delay in the middle.
I think my solution could be to just dynamically update the year, or roll back to the year of the change (i.e. this change), thus solving the problem once and for all.
Also what you said about adding content to the document, could you elaborate on that?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants