[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: 1.7.6 Candidates

From: Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:30:01 -0400

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Philip Martin
<philip.martin_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz <justin_at_erenkrantz.com> writes:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Philip Martin
>> <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
>>> Subversion 1.7.6 tarballs are now available for testing/signing by
>>> committers. To obtain them please check out a working copy from
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion
>>
>> +1 for release.
>>
>> Tested on Mac OS X 10.7.4.
>>
>> All tests pass (even the one that C-Mike pointed out failed for him).
>>
>> BTW, I used the release.py script...which signed all of the release
>> files. *shrug*
>
> You didn't have to commit all the files! You can also sign the files
> manually without using release.py.
>
> I signed all the files as release manager but while I looked at the zip
> file I didn't build/test it. When signing releases in the past I signed
> only the files I tested. I suppose we should extend release.py to
> support signing a subset.

I have sometimes wondered why we do not all sign all of the files.
Purely from a gpg trust perspective isn't more signatures a good
thing? As long as we are still properly counting the +1's we get for
Windows/Unix it does not seem like it hurts anything to have more
signatures on the files.

I could be wrong of course, I only kind of understand the intent of
gpg signatures.

-- 
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
Received on 2012-08-10 15:30:33 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.