Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-commons-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 21913 invoked from network); 17 Jun 2004 15:44:57 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 17 Jun 2004 15:44:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 93923 invoked by uid 500); 17 Jun 2004 15:44:53 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-commons-user-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 93897 invoked by uid 500); 17 Jun 2004 15:44:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Jakarta Commons Users List" Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Users List" Delivered-To: mailing list commons-user@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 93883 invoked by uid 99); 17 Jun 2004 15:44:53 -0000 Received: from [195.186.1.207] (HELO mail5.bluewin.ch) (195.186.1.207) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.27.1) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 08:44:53 -0700 Received: from mssbzhb-int.msg.bluewin.ch (195.186.1.230) by mail5.bluewin.ch (Bluewin AG 7.0.028) id 40D19C0900005521 for commons-user@jakarta.apache.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:44:34 +0000 Received: from [172.21.1.219] by mssbzhb-int.msg.bluewin.ch with HTTP; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:44:34 +0000 Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:44:34 +0200 Message-ID: <408FE70900180944@mssbzhb-int.msg.bluewin.ch> In-Reply-To: From: olegk@bluewin.ch Subject: RE: httpclient md5 and asc files To: "Jakarta Commons Users List" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Bluewin WebMail / BlueMail X-Originating-IP: 172.21.1.219 X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Thomas, See my comments in-line > >Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the matter, especially on 3.0. However >. . . > >Quibble 1: >It seems odd to make would-be users choose between an "unverifiable" >production version (2.0) and a "verifiable" alpha version (3.0). > Maybe I am missing something obvious, but I can't see why this kind of "verifiability" matters. What comfort is it to you that HttpClient has been built, packaged and signed by some, for instance, Russian fella who's supposedly a Jakarta Commons committer? If you need truly verifiable build, you should probably consider checking the source out of cvs.apache.org, building and signing it yourself using a trusted key. I do not know it for sure but I ~ass~ume that all Commons releases are signed using self-generated keys that have not been signed by some sort of Root CA (Please someone correct me if I am wrong). >Quibble 2: >How long would it take to post an md5 hash, a signed 2.0.1--with or without >minor bug fixes--and accompanying .asc file? Cutting a proper release can usually take a good day of work > >Quibble 3: >No one has to upgrade if he/she doesn't want to. I am personally a bit hesitant to inflate release numbers for non-bugfix related issues. > >I'll try to drop the matter for now so as not to clutter mailboxes with this >seemingly trivial request. Plus, I'm sure you all have bigger fish to fry >(e.g., 3.0). > All this stuff said, if this is an important matter for you due to some regulatory reasons or company guidelines, let us know. All it takes to release 2.0.1 is a good cause, and winning a user is always a good one Oleg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org