qpid-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Timothy Bish <tabish...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] release checksum filename extension
Date Tue, 07 Mar 2017 17:34:31 GMT
On 03/07/2017 12:23 PM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
> According to http://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution.html#sigs-and-sums
> .sha is actually required:
>
> "An SHA checksum SHOULD also be created and MUST be suffixed .sha. The
> checksum SHOULD be generated using SHA512."
>
> I find the extension a little unhelpful personally, but ok.. :)

I would have voted for .sha256 for clarity

>
> Robbie
>
> On 7 March 2017 at 17:11, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I noted in the qpid-python-1.36.0 vote thread that the .sha file
>> contained a sha256 checksum, this being in place of the historic .sha1
>> checksum file.
>>
>> I'm curious what people think about the name relative to the contents?
>> I think .sha256 might be friendlier so that people know how to try and
>> verify it implicitly from its name?
>>
>> I mainly ask as I think I'll include one for the proton-j-0.18.0
>> release im about to cut, and am trying to settle on a name for it.
>>
>> Robbie
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Tim Bish
twitter: @tabish121
blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org


Mime
View raw message