Source Mage code commit list

[Sukneet Basuta <sukneet AT sourcemage.org>]

On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Ladislav Hagara
<ladislav.hagara AT unob.cz> wrote:
>> Why sha512 to gpg verification? They are equivalent.
>> And according to http://wiki.sourcemage.org/HISTORY there is no reason
>> to mention it in HISTORY.

I was under the impression that GPG verification is better than hash
verification, but thinking about it, unless its vendor signed, they
are probably equal.
http://wiki.sourcemage.org/Source_Integrity_Checking_Standards states
that all spells should be moved to GPG verification. It also states
" The following are not valid bugs yet, but may be in the future:
    Spells which use SOURCE_HASH instead of SOURCE_GPG."
I figured we may as well start moving them over now if they do
eventually become bugs. Although, it looks like I've been ignoring
putting in the verification level.

Should I not bother switching things over to GPG verification?

I've been mentioning it in HISTORY because I think its a good idea to
mention any changes should things like this occur.

> And we should really test before commit!
>
> Building lxappearance
> GPG checking source file lxappearance-0.5.1.tar.gz...

Sorry fixed. I thought I did check it, but I guess I forgot to after I
switched to gpg verification.
I wrote a script that automatically switches spells to gpg
verification for me, I'll make it automatically cast the spell after
each change - that is, if I should continue switching things over to
GPG verification.