Mailing-List: contact dev-help@subversion.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of ben@reser.org designates
 192.242.17.19 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAHFaGCpjSx7WM5=2L05gLfy2JRrR5xQvdVJeO_K_5XjmPiC4_A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <87ehnhgu3m.fsf@stat.home.lan>
	<CAOGLoJNP-1O6fHxu-KXrVssxUyPyi7+Zo_iBcB+xg_H30UXu_A@mail.gmail.com>
	<871ujeyjz0.fsf@stat.home.lan>
	<CAHFaGCrRRW4V3rRQXu+PJbjk1C7TBVXv+7aP53sBVS5KY4Cavw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120811185716.GB28598@tarsus.local2>
	<CAHFaGCpjSx7WM5=2L05gLfy2JRrR5xQvdVJeO_K_5XjmPiC4_A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 21:06:21 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CADkdwvR4jUnw+pEHTfE+O5o4RgBpfWjBEo-QiE5OT4jLAoOEYg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 1.7.6 Candidates
From: Ben Reser <ben@reser.org>
To: dev@subversion.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Mark Phippard <markphip@gmail.com> wrote:
> But if we still require three +1's from Windows testers and three from
> Unix testers does that not take care of it?  Paul and I tested and
> signed the Windows zip file.  Doesn't it make the signatures of the
> Unix tar's "better" if we also signed those?  Likewise, if C-Mike,
> Philip and Justin signed the Windows zip files it seems like that
> would also be "better".
>
> They would not be giving a binding Windows +1, just adding their
> signatures to the files.

Original intent was you'd sign the files you were voting on.  However,
the extra effort to track who's voting doesn't really seem to be too
onerous.  People are already posting saying what they're voting on.
So unless the release manager objects I don't see a problem with
signing all the files (and I did so).