Perfect. Enjoy!
Gary
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm on vacation for one week. I will not have internet access, so I will
> not respond to any mails.
>
> Regards,
> Benedikt
>
--
E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
Java Persistence w
Don't despair, I plan on being +1 for the next RC :-)
Gary
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Josh Elser wrote:
> Well, this seems to have officially been stalled after 2 binding votes
> (which is super disheartening).
>
> 1, +1
> 1, -1
> 1, non-binding +1.
>
> Thank you Gary, Stian, and Benedikt
Hello,
I'm on vacation for one week. I will not have internet access, so I will
not respond to any mails.
Regards,
Benedikt
Well, this seems to have officially been stalled after 2 binding votes
(which is super disheartening).
1, +1
1, -1
1, non-binding +1.
Thank you Gary, Stian, and Benedikt for finding the time to vote!
I guess I'll pull in Gary's changes and hope we can get the minimum
binding votes for the nex
Hello,
Fully agree for checksum files no stronger hashes are needed. For the pgp
signatures we should however avoid md5/sha1. The advantage isnthat this is
pretty transparent (alg encoded in .asc file). It only breaks for some very old
invoked pgp binaries. (Theoretically we can add multiple si
I am not even sure how you would do this. Maven does this automatically when
you deploy. In Log4j I only do it manually when I zip the web site and archive
it.
Ralph
> On May 9, 2016, at 5:51 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> Should we follow suit?
>
> Gary
>
> -- Forwarded message -
As long as all the required PGP keys are in the KEYS file, falling back to
only .asc signatures would be ok with me. However, if the required public
keys are missing from KEYS, that makes it very hard to automate
verification of artifacts.
On 10 May 2016 at 05:42, Gary Gregory wrote:
> I've not
I've not looked into it...
On May 10, 2016 2:30 AM, "Benedikt Ritter" wrote:
> Hi Gary,
>
> What changes are required for this? Is this just a setting in
> commons-parent?
>
> Benedikt
>
> Gary Gregory schrieb am Di., 10. Mai 2016 um
> 02:51 Uhr:
>
> > Should we follow suit?
> >
> > Gary
> >
> >
Why bother changing?
Checksums/hashes are only intended for checking that a download has
completed OK.
They don't provide any authentication as anyone can generate them.
AFAICT the strength of the hash has no bearing on its utility.
People should use the sigs instead.
Switching to a stronger ha
Hi Gary,
What changes are required for this? Is this just a setting in
commons-parent?
Benedikt
Gary Gregory schrieb am Di., 10. Mai 2016 um
02:51 Uhr:
> Should we follow suit?
>
> Gary
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: David M Williams
> Date: Mon, May 9, 2016 at 5:37 PM
>
10 matches
Mail list logo
