Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> skribis: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:56:58PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> skribis: >> >> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 02:53:00PM +0200, Andreas Enge wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> >> Why not just drop gpg-2.0 then? >> > >> > All three GnuPG branches (1.4, 2.0, 2.1) are actively maintained. Why >> > drop 2.0? >> >> +1 >> >> Besides, I use 2.0, because for some reason 2.1 has always failed for me >> (though I never took the time to investigate.) >> >> Anyway, this patch is just about how we name the command. That the >> command is called ‘gpg2’ is a well-known annoyance, and Werner >> recommends not doing that anyway. > > Is there a consensus on the way forward? Should we apply this patch to > gnupg-2.1?
To me it seems the answer is “yes”. If you want to be sure, please leave another couple of days before pushing. :-) > Is anyone willing to test and maintain patches against gnupg-2.0 (not > me)? I can try to do that “eventually”, if nobody beats me at it. Thanks, Ludo’.
