Hi,
> so what?
>
> If I signed it, then a few signatures would be on my key but for the
> majority of users there wouldn't be a trust path from them to my key.
>
> It is better to have signatures on your key, that's sure (and that is
> something we can get arranged even without meeting F2F),
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Kevin Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Any reason why you can't create a key for yourself?
>
> My key isn't counter-signed so anything I sign will be 'untrusted'
> :(
so what?
If I signed it, then a few signatures would be on my key but for the
majority of us
Hi,
> Any reason why you can't create a key for yourself?
My key isn't counter-signed so anything I sign will be 'untrusted' :(
Kev
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Kevin Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I think it's time to go ahead and push out 1.7.1 for wider testing.
>
> good.
>
> > Over to the vote:
>
> That's not how this works. You create the t
+1
Martijn
Kevin Jackson schreef:
Hi all,
I think it's time to go ahead and push out 1.7.1 for wider testing.
I really *don't* want to add any changes to code at the moment, but if
there are any documentation issues that someone notices I'm willing to
let them in on a case by case basis
Over
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Kevin Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it's time to go ahead and push out 1.7.1 for wider testing.
good.
> Over to the vote:
That's not how this works. You create the tasballs (and zips) and we
vote on them.
> Despite the strange bug Steve uncovered for networ
Kevin Jackson wrote:
Hi all,
I think it's time to go ahead and push out 1.7.1 for wider testing.
I really *don't* want to add any changes to code at the moment, but if
there are any documentation issues that someone notices I'm willing to
let them in on a case by case basis
Over to the vote:
Hi all,
I think it's time to go ahead and push out 1.7.1 for wider testing.
I really *don't* want to add any changes to code at the moment, but if
there are any documentation issues that someone notices I'm willing to
let them in on a case by case basis
Over to the vote:
Despite the strange bug
