From: "Jeremy Blosser (emrys)" <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org>
To: sm-commit AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [SM-Commit] PERFORCE change 78742 by Flavien Bridault for review
Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 13:15:48 -0500
On May 01, Andra?? ruskie Levstik [ruskie AT mages.ath.cx] wrote:
> Ladislav Hagara wrote :
> > Any reason to change SOURCE_HASH to SOURCE_GPG?
> > Is it necessary to mention it in HISTORY?
> >
> > Sorry for nitpicking, just testing sm-commit list. :-)
> >
>
> Really no reason to move one from the other... we have both as
> interchangable... UNLESS there is upstream GPG in which case that
> has to be used over any other...
I do not want to reanimate the dead horse, but officially _GPG *is*
preferred over _HASH, even though both are allowed. _GPG even via guru
keys grants us things we don't have with _HASH, such as non-repudiation of
the signature.