On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 15:56:03 +0000 MFPA <expires2...@ymail.com> articulated:
> On Thursday 18 November 2010 at 3:50:34 PM, in > <mid:20101118105034.3e870...@scorpio>, Jerry wrote: > > > > Maybe I missed it somewhere, but exactly why do you > > feel "2.0.14" is unstable? > > They probably remember the GnuPG 1.4.x release announcements that used > to include:- > > "GnuPG 1.4.x is the current stable branch and will be kept as the > easy to use and build single-executable versions. We plan to > backport new features from the development series to 1.4." Interestingly enough, I was included in both the To: & Cc: fields of this posts; however, the mailing list itself was suspiciously absent. Obviously the poster failed to read or comprehend the disclaimer. In any case, they also probably missed this announcement: GnuPG 2.0 is the new modularized version of GnuPG supporting OpenPGP and S/MIME The emphasis would be on "new modularized version" My question was related to why the poster thought 2.x was unstable. His reply was to peruse the archives for some specific data. That search phenomena. It might well be worth pointing out that they also were related to a previously superseded version. Now, if that poster can show proof that the latest 2.x version is unstable we might have something to discuss. Otherwise, it is just yesterdays news. -- Jerry ✌ gnupg.u...@seibercom.net _____________________________________________________________________ Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
