Whoops, fixed, thanks.
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 08:36:51PM -0400, Helmut Tessarek wrote:
> Since today the web site shows tmux version 1.9 instead of 1.9a. Also the
> download link points to version 1.9.
>
> It's a little bit weird, because for a short period of time, the site even
> showed versio
On 15.09.14 22:14 , Anish R Athalye wrote:
> Well, theoretically, the error on the website could be an attacker's attempt
> to get people to download malicious software or something.
I agree, signing commits and/or tags makes sense. I just didn't get why you
used this thread.
> I didn’t mean t
Well, theoretically, the error on the website could be an attacker's attempt to
get people to download malicious software or something.
I didn’t mean to hijack the thread or anything.
On Sep 15, 2014, at 10:08 PM, Helmut Tessarek wrote:
> On 15.09.14 20:58 , Anish R Athalye wrote:
>> Could we
On 15.09.14 20:58 , Anish R Athalye wrote:
> Could we start having GPG signed tagged releases? It’s a nice security
> feature to have.
What does this have to do with the error on the web site?
--
regards Helmut K. C. Tessarek
lookup http://sks.pkqs.net for KeyID 0xC11F128D
/*
Thou shalt not
Could we start having GPG signed tagged releases? It’s a nice security feature
to have.
On Sep 15, 2014, at 8:36 PM, Helmut Tessarek wrote:
> Since today the web site shows tmux version 1.9 instead of 1.9a. Also the
> download link points to version 1.9.
>
> It's a little bit weird, because fo
