Fwd: .sha Release Distribution Policy

[dmagda]

Igniters, especially the release managers,

Please consider these changes and recommendations for the next release. Do we have any ticket that already takes this into account?

—
Denis

> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: "Henk P. Penning" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: .sha Release Distribution Policy
> Date: August 16, 2017 at 1:55:57 AM PDT
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Reply-To: [hidden email]
>
> Hi PMC,
>
>   The Release Distribution Policy[1] changed regarding .sha files.
>   See under "Cryptographic Signatures and Checksums Requirements" [2].
>
>  Old policy :
>
>    -- use extension .sha for any SHA checksum (SHA-1, SHA-256, SHA-512)
>
>  New policy :
>
>     -- use .sha1 for a SHA-1 checksum
>     -- use .sha256 for a SHA-256 checksum
>     -- use .sha512 for a SHA-512 checksum
>     -- [*] .sha should contain a SHA-1
>
>  Why this change ?
>
>     -- Verifying a checksum under the old policy is/was not handy.
>        You have to inspect the .sha to find out which algorithm
>        should be used ; or try them all (SHA-1, SHA256, etc).
>        The new scheme avoids this ambiguity.
>     -- The last point[*] was only added for clarity. Most of the
>        old, stale .sha's contain a SHA-1. The relatively new .sha's
>        contain a SHA-512. The expectation is that the last catagory will
>        disappear, when active projects adapt to the 'new' convention.
>
>  Impact :
>
>     -- Should be none ; many projects already use the 'new' convention.
>     -- Please ask your release managers to use .sha1, .sha256, .sha512
>        instead of the .sha extension.
>     -- Please fix your build-tools if you have any.
>
>  Piggyback :
>
>     -- The policy requires a .md5 for every package ;
>        providing a .sha512 is recommended.
>        Since MD5 is essentially broken, it is to be expected that
>        in the future a .sha512 will be required.
>        Perhaps it is wize to start providing .sha512's
>        with your releases if you do not already do so.
>
>     -- Visit http://mirror-vm.apache.org/checker/
>        to check the health of your /dist/-area ;
>        my stuff ; any feedback is most welcome.
>
>  Thanks ; regards,
>
>  Henk Penning
>
>   [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution
>   [2] http://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution#sigs-and-sums
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Henk P. Penning ; apache.org infrastructure volunteer.
> [hidden email] ; http://mirror-vm.apache.org/~henkp/

[Oleg Ostanin-2]

Hi, Denis

Yes, we have a ticket that already takes this into account:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5817
I think we can create both sha-256 and sha-512 checksums.

Best regards
Oleg

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 1:51 AM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Igniters, especially the release managers,
>
> Please consider these changes and recommendations for the next release. Do
> we have any ticket that already takes this into account?
>
> —
> Denis
>
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: "Henk P. Penning" <[hidden email]>
> > Subject: .sha Release Distribution Policy
> > Date: August 16, 2017 at 1:55:57 AM PDT
> > To: <[hidden email]>
> > Reply-To: [hidden email]
> >
> > Hi PMC,
> >
> >   The Release Distribution Policy[1] changed regarding .sha files.
> >   See under "Cryptographic Signatures and Checksums Requirements" [2].
> >
> >  Old policy :
> >
> >    -- use extension .sha for any SHA checksum (SHA-1, SHA-256, SHA-512)
> >
> >  New policy :
> >
> >     -- use .sha1 for a SHA-1 checksum
> >     -- use .sha256 for a SHA-256 checksum
> >     -- use .sha512 for a SHA-512 checksum
> >     -- [*] .sha should contain a SHA-1
> >
> >  Why this change ?
> >
> >     -- Verifying a checksum under the old policy is/was not handy.
> >        You have to inspect the .sha to find out which algorithm
> >        should be used ; or try them all (SHA-1, SHA256, etc).
> >        The new scheme avoids this ambiguity.
> >     -- The last point[*] was only added for clarity. Most of the
> >        old, stale .sha's contain a SHA-1. The relatively new .sha's
> >        contain a SHA-512. The expectation is that the last catagory will
> >        disappear, when active projects adapt to the 'new' convention.
> >
> >  Impact :
> >
> >     -- Should be none ; many projects already use the 'new' convention.
> >     -- Please ask your release managers to use .sha1, .sha256, .sha512
> >        instead of the .sha extension.
> >     -- Please fix your build-tools if you have any.
> >
> >  Piggyback :
> >
> >     -- The policy requires a .md5 for every package ;
> >        providing a .sha512 is recommended.
> >        Since MD5 is essentially broken, it is to be expected that
> >        in the future a .sha512 will be required.
> >        Perhaps it is wize to start providing .sha512's
> >        with your releases if you do not already do so.
> >
> >     -- Visit http://mirror-vm.apache.org/checker/
> >        to check the health of your /dist/-area ;
> >        my stuff ; any feedback is most welcome.
> >
> >  Thanks ; regards,
> >
> >  Henk Penning
> >
> >   [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution
> >   [2] http://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution#sigs-and-sums
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > Henk P. Penning ; apache.org infrastructure volunteer.
> > [hidden email] ; http://mirror-vm.apache.org/~henkp/
>
>

[Sergey Kozlov]

Denis

Also we don't use .sha extension so we already follow that rules

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Oleg Ostanin <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi, Denis
>
> Yes, we have a ticket that already takes this into account:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5817
> I think we can create both sha-256 and sha-512 checksums.
>
> Best regards
> Oleg
>
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 1:51 AM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Igniters, especially the release managers,
> >
> > Please consider these changes and recommendations for the next release.
> Do
> > we have any ticket that already takes this into account?
> >
> > —
> > Denis
> >
> > > Begin forwarded message:
> > >
> > > From: "Henk P. Penning" <[hidden email]>
> > > Subject: .sha Release Distribution Policy
> > > Date: August 16, 2017 at 1:55:57 AM PDT
> > > To: <[hidden email]>
> > > Reply-To: [hidden email]
> > >
> > > Hi PMC,
> > >
> > >   The Release Distribution Policy[1] changed regarding .sha files.
> > >   See under "Cryptographic Signatures and Checksums Requirements" [2].
> > >
> > >  Old policy :
> > >
> > >    -- use extension .sha for any SHA checksum (SHA-1, SHA-256, SHA-512)
> > >
> > >  New policy :
> > >
> > >     -- use .sha1 for a SHA-1 checksum
> > >     -- use .sha256 for a SHA-256 checksum
> > >     -- use .sha512 for a SHA-512 checksum
> > >     -- [*] .sha should contain a SHA-1
> > >
> > >  Why this change ?
> > >
> > >     -- Verifying a checksum under the old policy is/was not handy.
> > >        You have to inspect the .sha to find out which algorithm
> > >        should be used ; or try them all (SHA-1, SHA256, etc).
> > >        The new scheme avoids this ambiguity.
> > >     -- The last point[*] was only added for clarity. Most of the
> > >        old, stale .sha's contain a SHA-1. The relatively new .sha's
> > >        contain a SHA-512. The expectation is that the last catagory
> will
> > >        disappear, when active projects adapt to the 'new' convention.
> > >
> > >  Impact :
> > >
> > >     -- Should be none ; many projects already use the 'new' convention.
> > >     -- Please ask your release managers to use .sha1, .sha256, .sha512
> > >        instead of the .sha extension.
> > >     -- Please fix your build-tools if you have any.
> > >
> > >  Piggyback :
> > >
> > >     -- The policy requires a .md5 for every package ;
> > >        providing a .sha512 is recommended.
> > >        Since MD5 is essentially broken, it is to be expected that
> > >        in the future a .sha512 will be required.
> > >        Perhaps it is wize to start providing .sha512's
> > >        with your releases if you do not already do so.
> > >
> > >     -- Visit http://mirror-vm.apache.org/checker/
> > >        to check the health of your /dist/-area ;
> > >        my stuff ; any feedback is most welcome.
> > >
> > >  Thanks ; regards,
> > >
> > >  Henk Penning
> > >
> > >   [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution
> > >   [2] http://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution#sigs-and-sums
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Henk P. Penning ; apache.org infrastructure volunteer.
> > > [hidden email] ; http://mirror-vm.apache.org/~henkp/
> >
> >
>

--
Sergey Kozlov
GridGain Systems
www.gridgain.com

[dmagda]

Guys,

Thanks for the confirmation and taking care of this.

—
Denis

> On Aug 17, 2017, at 1:32 AM, Sergey Kozlov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Denis
>
> Also we don't use .sha extension so we already follow that rules
>
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Oleg Ostanin <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi, Denis
>>
>> Yes, we have a ticket that already takes this into account:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5817
>> I think we can create both sha-256 and sha-512 checksums.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Oleg
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 1:51 AM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Igniters, especially the release managers,
>>>
>>> Please consider these changes and recommendations for the next release.
>> Do
>>> we have any ticket that already takes this into account?
>>>
>>> —
>>> Denis
>>>
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>
>>>> From: "Henk P. Penning" <[hidden email]>
>>>> Subject: .sha Release Distribution Policy
>>>> Date: August 16, 2017 at 1:55:57 AM PDT
>>>> To: <[hidden email]>
>>>> Reply-To: [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>> Hi PMC,
>>>>
>>>>  The Release Distribution Policy[1] changed regarding .sha files.
>>>>  See under "Cryptographic Signatures and Checksums Requirements" [2].
>>>>
>>>> Old policy :
>>>>
>>>>   -- use extension .sha for any SHA checksum (SHA-1, SHA-256, SHA-512)
>>>>
>>>> New policy :
>>>>
>>>>    -- use .sha1 for a SHA-1 checksum
>>>>    -- use .sha256 for a SHA-256 checksum
>>>>    -- use .sha512 for a SHA-512 checksum
>>>>    -- [*] .sha should contain a SHA-1
>>>>
>>>> Why this change ?
>>>>
>>>>    -- Verifying a checksum under the old policy is/was not handy.
>>>>       You have to inspect the .sha to find out which algorithm
>>>>       should be used ; or try them all (SHA-1, SHA256, etc).
>>>>       The new scheme avoids this ambiguity.
>>>>    -- The last point[*] was only added for clarity. Most of the
>>>>       old, stale .sha's contain a SHA-1. The relatively new .sha's
>>>>       contain a SHA-512. The expectation is that the last catagory
>> will
>>>>       disappear, when active projects adapt to the 'new' convention.
>>>>
>>>> Impact :
>>>>
>>>>    -- Should be none ; many projects already use the 'new' convention.
>>>>    -- Please ask your release managers to use .sha1, .sha256, .sha512
>>>>       instead of the .sha extension.
>>>>    -- Please fix your build-tools if you have any.
>>>>
>>>> Piggyback :
>>>>
>>>>    -- The policy requires a .md5 for every package ;
>>>>       providing a .sha512 is recommended.
>>>>       Since MD5 is essentially broken, it is to be expected that
>>>>       in the future a .sha512 will be required.
>>>>       Perhaps it is wize to start providing .sha512's
>>>>       with your releases if you do not already do so.
>>>>
>>>>    -- Visit http://mirror-vm.apache.org/checker/
>>>>       to check the health of your /dist/-area ;
>>>>       my stuff ; any feedback is most welcome.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks ; regards,
>>>>
>>>> Henk Penning
>>>>
>>>>  [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution
>>>>  [2] http://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution#sigs-and-sums
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Henk P. Penning ; apache.org infrastructure volunteer.
>>>> [hidden email] ; http://mirror-vm.apache.org/~henkp/
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Sergey Kozlov
> GridGain Systems
> www.gridgain.com