Re: global year updates

[Bruno Haible]

Eric Blake wrote:
> I see no reason to remove years that were added during a global year update.

Listing the years individually gave at least a certain idea about whether a
file is "active", i.e. heavily used and maintained, or on the bitrot slope.
Well, you can also see that by peeking into the git history.

I gave my ok for the global year update in December, but now I find that I
actually liked the previous way of updating the list of years incrementally,
not globally.

Bruno