On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 10:41:00PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 5/2/14, 9:58 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 07:26:21PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >> On 5/1/14, 7:05 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > >>> Hi folks, > >>> > >>> The xfsprogs repository at git://oss.sgi.com/xfs/cmds/xfsprogs has > >>> just been updated. > >>> > >>> The new head of the master branch is commit: > >>> > >>> 67fcc94 xfsprogs: v3.2.0-rc2 release > >>> > >>> This commit has been tagged with v3.2.0-rc2. I'd like everyone who > >>> can test this to test it, as all the issues that needed to be solved > >>> before a release coul dbe made have now been addressed. If there are > >>> no new regressions or critical issues reported in the next week or > >>> so, I will make an official 3.2.0 release. So, please test. :) > >> > >> Any chance for a signed tarball? > > > > Do we need one? I can generate one, but I'm not 100% sure where we > > are putting them up online.... > > The others are at ftp://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/cmd_tars/ > > I dunno, I think distros usually expect to be able to grab a > tarball... OK, I've uploaded a signed tarball to that location with the sha1sum of: 93f3dd8818a749e718fd75e8dd48c466570a402c xfsprogs-3.2.0-rc2.tar.gz FWIW, that set of "release" directories is a wasteland of old releases, rpms, stuff moved out of the way because of mistakes, etc. There is no consistent use of permissions or users, README files are out of date, etc. Any suggestions on what should be done to clean this up? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
