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 <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> 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: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org
--
Tim Bish
twitter: @tabish121
blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org
