To be fair that page says nothing about how to name SHA256 checksums :-), only that we SHOULD be creating SHA512 checksums named .sha.
So, I'm +1 on naming the SHA256 .sha256 ... and it seems like the Python release really shouldn't name a SHA256 file .sha as by the above that extension should be reserved for SHA512. -- Rob On 7 March 2017 at 18:34, Timothy Bish <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> >> 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: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> >> > > -- > Tim Bish > twitter: @tabish121 > blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/ > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
