On Mon, 2012-02-13 at 14:23 +0100, Petr Schindler wrote:
> If you have some objection on this one, please, let me know till
> tomorrow, otherwise if there are no suggestions I'll make changes.
I've made changes. I've added new alpha and final release criterion to
[1] [2]. And I've changed release
If you have some objection on this one, please, let me know till
tomorrow, otherwise if there are no suggestions I'll make changes.
On Wed, 2012-02-01 at 11:40 +0100, Petr Schindler wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 10:23 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 07:48 -0500, Petr Schin
On Wed, 2012-02-01 at 16:33 +, Andre Robatino wrote:
> Frank Murphy gmail.com> writes:
>
> > > A built-in checksum is only useful for checking for natural corruption,
> > > not a
> > > deliberate fake (since in that case it's easy to change the checksum to
> > > the
> > > correct one for th
Frank Murphy gmail.com> writes:
> > A built-in checksum is only useful for checking for natural corruption, not
> > a
> > deliberate fake (since in that case it's easy to change the checksum to the
> > correct one for the fake). Even md5 is more than enough for this purpose.
> >
>
> So it's not
On 01/02/12 16:11, Andre Robatino wrote:
A built-in checksum is only useful for checking for natural corruption, not a
deliberate fake (since in that case it's easy to change the checksum to the
correct one for the fake). Even md5 is more than enough for this purpose.
So it's not error proof
Frank Murphy gmail.com> writes:
> > "If there is embedded checksum on ISO media, it must be correct."
> >
>
> Not trying to hijack.
> But, is there a reason md5 is still being used?
A built-in checksum is only useful for checking for natural corruption, not a
deliberate fake (since in that cas
On 01/02/12 10:40, Petr Schindler wrote:
You are right. So beside this alpha criterion I propose new final
criterion:
"If there is embedded checksum on ISO media, it must be correct."
Not trying to hijack.
But, is there a reason md5 is still being used?
--
Regards,
Frank Murphy, friend
On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 10:23 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 07:48 -0500, Petr Schindler wrote:
>
> > OK, so test case should stay in alpha and new criterion should be in
> > alpha too. I propose to drop the part about embedded checksum (that
> > would be only additional check
On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 07:48 -0500, Petr Schindler wrote:
> OK, so test case should stay in alpha and new criterion should be in
> alpha too. I propose to drop the part about embedded checksum (that
> would be only additional check) and new criterion should be:
>
> "A correct checksum must be publ
> From: "Adam Williamson"
> To: "For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1:51:16 AM
> Subject: Re: New criterion for Checksum
>
> On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 18:02 +, Andre Robatino wrote:
> > P
On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 18:02 +, Andre Robatino wrote:
> Petr Schindler redhat.com> writes:
>
> > I propose new final criterion:
> >
> > "There must be published correct checksum for each ISO media. Also if there
> > is
> embedded checksum on ISO
> > media, it must be correct."
> >
> > I
On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 11:23 -0500, Petr Schindler wrote:
> I propose new final criterion:
>
> "There must be published correct checksum for each ISO media. Also if
> there is embedded checksum on ISO media, it must be correct."
Small grammar fixes:
"A correct checksum published for each officia
Petr Schindler redhat.com> writes:
> I propose new final criterion:
>
> "There must be published correct checksum for each ISO media. Also if there is
embedded checksum on ISO
> media, it must be correct."
>
> I think we should check this. We have already test case [1]. I propose to
change r
I propose new final criterion:
"There must be published correct checksum for each ISO media. Also if there is
embedded checksum on ISO media, it must be correct."
I think we should check this. We have already test case [1]. I propose to
change release level for this test case to final.
[1]
14 matches
Mail list logo
