Re: Breaking changes

On Wed, 23 May 2018 15:45, m16+gn...@monksofcool.net said: > 1. GPG is maintained by volunteers. If you have any complaint about how > this maintenance is progressing, get off your behind and be a volunteer That is fortunately not true. I work full time on GnuPG and related software, Gniibe is

end-of-life announcements (was: Breaking changes)

On Wed, 23 May 2018 13:56, d...@kegel.com said: >> So when talking about EOL, gpg community should consider writing down a >> consistent EOL strategy, similar to those of Ubuntu, Linux kernel or others >> or something like I tried to argue for in the middle of >>

AW: Breaking changes

> Von: Gnupg-users [mailto:gnupg-users-boun...@gnupg.org] Im Auftrag von > Ralph Seichter > > This thread really has me pulling my hair--what's left of it. Some core > aspects from where I am standing: > > 1. GPG is maintained by volunteers. If you have any complaint about how > this maintenance

Re: Breaking changes

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi On Tuesday 22 May 2018 at 3:34:40 AM, in , Mirimir wrote:- > So is there anything that gpg v2.2 won't decrypt with > the option > "--ignore-mdc-error" specified? Or perhaps, with also >

Re: Breaking changes

> What I percieve a lot in this thread are variations of "I wanna stay in > bed for five more minutes mommy". I wonder if Werner and Robert should > charge 5 EUR for every incident of whining to secure some funds? First, I am in *no way* important to GnuPG's future. I maintain a FAQ, field

Re: Breaking changes

This thread really has me pulling my hair--what's left of it. Some core aspects from where I am standing: 1. GPG is maintained by volunteers. If you have any complaint about how this maintenance is progressing, get off your behind and be a volunteer yourself, or failing that, provide an

Re: Breaking changes

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 10:24 PM, Fiedler Roman wrote: >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard >> already give an end-of-life date for 2.0, but none for 1.4. >> And since Ubuntu 16.04 includes 1.4, there are likely >> to still be a few vocal 1.4 users out

AW: Breaking changes

> Von: Gnupg-users [mailto:gnupg-users-boun...@gnupg.org] Im Auftrag von > > Lessee... > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard > already give an end-of-life date for 2.0, but none for 1.4. > And since Ubuntu 16.04 includes 1.4, there are likely > to still be a few vocal 1.4 users out

Re: Breaking changes

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 05:47:43AM -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > > Get real. These people are long-time GnuPG users and now you want to > > throw them under the bus because... well, because you prefer it that > > way. > > 1.4 was deprecated the instant 2.0 was released. After much pushback it

Re: Breaking changes

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 01:22:41AM +0200, Leo Gaspard via Gnupg-users wrote: > On 05/22/2018 11:48 PM, Dennis Clarke wrote: > > On 05/22/2018 05:38 PM, Dan Kegel wrote: > >> Lessee... > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard > >> already give an end-of-life date for 2.0, but none for

Re: Breaking changes

On 05/22/2018 08:21 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote: If the announced end-of-life is 12 months, then people will complain for 9 months, and maybe start working on migrating during the last 3 months. You're an optimist. For any EOL date, a vast number of users ... The real issue is the vast gulf

Re: Breaking changes

> If the announced end-of-life is 12 months, then people will complain for > 9 months, and maybe start working on migrating during the last 3 months. You're an optimist. For any EOL date, a vast number of users will simply *not migrate* until they stop getting updates. The reason why is they're

Re: Breaking changes

How about announcing an end-of-life date for 1.4 that is in the future (say, by 3 to 6 months)? Too fast. Think 12 months as a minimum. There is prod code out there running for years and a timeline that allows proper project schedule/costing/testing would be better. If the announced

Re: Breaking changes

On 05/22/2018 11:48 PM, Dennis Clarke wrote: > On 05/22/2018 05:38 PM, Dan Kegel wrote: >> Lessee... >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard >> already give an end-of-life date for 2.0, but none for 1.4. >> And since Ubuntu 16.04 includes 1.4, there are likely >> to still be a few vocal

Re: Breaking changes

On 05/22/2018 05:38 PM, Dan Kegel wrote: Lessee... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard already give an end-of-life date for 2.0, but none for 1.4. And since Ubuntu 16.04 includes 1.4, there are likely to still be a few vocal 1.4 users out there. How about announcing an end-of-life

Re: Breaking changes

Lessee... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard already give an end-of-life date for 2.0, but none for 1.4. And since Ubuntu 16.04 includes 1.4, there are likely to still be a few vocal 1.4 users out there. How about announcing an end-of-life date for 1.4 that is in the future (say, by

AW: Breaking changes

> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: Gnupg-users [mailto:gnupg-users-boun...@gnupg.org] Im Auftrag von Ralph > Seichter > Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. Mai 2018 12:59 > > On 22.05.18 03:42, Mark Rousell wrote: > > > Preventing users from encrypting new data using legacy encryption does > > NOT

Re: Breaking changes

On 22.05.18 03:42, Mark Rousell wrote: > Preventing users from encrypting new data using legacy encryption does > NOT need to mean that other users have to be prevented from (quite > legitimately) accessing archived data using legacy encryption with > maintained software. Who said "have to be

Re: Breaking changes

> Get real. These people are long-time GnuPG users and now you want to > throw them under the bus because... well, because you prefer it that > way. 1.4 was deprecated the instant 2.0 was released. After much pushback it was agreed to continue supporting 1.4. But after fourteen years it's time

Re: Breaking changes

On 05/21/2018 02:57 PM, Mark Rousell wrote: > On 22/05/2018 02:39, Mark Rousell wrote: >> Get real. These people are long-time GnuPG users and now you want to >> throw them under the bus because... well, because you prefer it that >> way. No, that's not a fair, it's not reasonable, it's not

Re: Breaking changes

On 22/05/2018 02:39, Mark Rousell wrote: > Get real. These people are long-time GnuPG users and now you want to > throw them under the bus because... well, because you prefer it that > way. No, that's not a fair, it's not reasonable, it's not ethical, or > it's even professional. [etc etc] On

Re: Breaking changes

On 21/05/2018 10:46, Ralph Seichter wrote: > On 21.05.18 07:20, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > >> We should keep the 1.4 source code available, but wash our hands of it >> and say it will receive *no* future fixes, not even for security >> issues -- and we need to stand on that when people start

Re: Breaking changes

On 21/05/2018 06:20, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > Here's my own set of suggestions for breaking changes to GnuPG: > > 1. End-of-life 1.4 already. > > Yes, it's the only option for PGP 2.6. Yes, it's the only option for > old and out-of-date stuff. Yes, there will be people who

Re: Breaking changes

On 21.05.18 07:20, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > We should keep the 1.4 source code available, but wash our hands of it > and say it will receive *no* future fixes, not even for security > issues -- and we need to stand on that when people start screaming. I agree. In my experience, this

Breaking changes

On 05/21/2018 06:20 AM, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > 2. End-of-life 2.0. That one at least is already done. The 2.0 branch reached EOL with the 2.0.31 release on December 29, 2017. I believe Werner stated clearly enough that there will be *no* further point release on that branch, not even for

Breaking changes

Here's my own set of suggestions for breaking changes to GnuPG: 1. End-of-life 1.4 already. Yes, it's the only option for PGP 2.6. Yes, it's the only option for old and out-of-date stuff. Yes, there will be people who need to decrypt this stuff. All of that is true, but *we* don't need