intrigeri:
> sajolida wrote (02 Feb 2016 15:17:13 GMT) :
>> I'm not super happy in principle to rewrite history like this (in this
>> case something in /news) but here I think it's ok.
>
> Yes, especially since this specific piece of news is actually pointed
> to from various places of our doc :)
Muri Nicanor:
> on the signing key transition page
> (https://tails.boum.org/news/signing_key_transition/) the 'full
> description' of the (then) new signing key still mentions the old
> expiration date. i'm not sure if we should change that, but at least one
> user was confused by that...
I'm
sajolida wrote (02 Feb 2016 15:17:13 GMT) :
> I'm not super happy in principle to rewrite history like this (in this
> case something in /news) but here I think it's ok.
Yes, especially since this specific piece of news is actually pointed
to from various places of our doc :)
on the signing key transition page
(https://tails.boum.org/news/signing_key_transition/) the 'full
description' of the (then) new signing key still mentions the old
expiration date. i'm not sure if we should change that, but at least one
user was confused by that...
Based on commit
