Topic: Date discrepancy when checking signed tag (Read 1142 times)
Great! Thanks for your awesome work.
According to https://bitcoinarmory.com/building-armory-from-source/, if you do
you should get
However,I get
Note the date discrepancy.
There are some other differences because my git tag command seems to produce more verbose output, but that is the only one that seems strange to me.
I'm not that experienced with git, especially with tags, so I _think_ this isn't a problem, but can anyone tell me _why_ it isn't (or is) a problem? Maybe the dev re-tagged it at the later date, but I don't know why he would.
Thanks.
By the way, I know there is a newer signed tag (v0.87.2-beta), which is what I'm planning to actually use. But I was just concerned about the discrepancy described above.
Code:
git tag -v v0.87-beta
you should get
Code:
gpg: Signature made Sun 23 Dec 2012 01:46:25 AM EST using RSA key ID 98832223
gpg: Good signature from "Alan C. Reiner (Armory Signing Key)"
gpg: Good signature from "Alan C. Reiner (Armory Signing Key)
However,I get
Code:
gpg: Signature made Sun 13 Jan 2013 11:14:32 AM EST using RSA key ID 98832223
gpg: Good signature from "Alan C. Reiner (Armory Signing Key)
gpg: Good signature from "Alan C. Reiner (Armory Signing Key)
Note the date discrepancy.
There are some other differences because my git tag command seems to produce more verbose output, but that is the only one that seems strange to me.
I'm not that experienced with git, especially with tags, so I _think_ this isn't a problem, but can anyone tell me _why_ it isn't (or is) a problem? Maybe the dev re-tagged it at the later date, but I don't know why he would.
Thanks.
By the way, I know there is a newer signed tag (v0.87.2-beta), which is what I'm planning to actually use. But I was just concerned about the discrepancy described above.
My fault, actually. I believe that text was copied for the 0.86.3 release, and then I updated just the version number when I released 0.87, not noticing that the date was part of it. Of course, I wanted to have the latest version number, so people simply copying the commands would get the right thing, but I screwed that up. I'll update it on the webpage.
Sorry for the confusion!
According to https://bitcoinarmory.com/building-armory-from-source/, if you do
you should get
However,I get
Note the date discrepancy.
There are some other differences because my git tag command seems to produce more verbose output, but that is the only one that seems strange to me.
I'm not that experienced with git, especially with tags, so I _think_ this isn't a problem, but can anyone tell me _why_ it isn't (or is) a problem? Maybe the dev re-tagged it at the later date, but I don't know why he would.
Thanks.
By the way, I know there is a newer signed tag (v0.87.2-beta), which is what I'm planning to actually use. But I was just concerned about the discrepancy described above.
Code:
git tag -v v0.87-beta
you should get
Code:
gpg: Signature made Sun 23 Dec 2012 01:46:25 AM EST using RSA key ID 98832223
gpg: Good signature from "Alan C. Reiner (Armory Signing Key)"
gpg: Good signature from "Alan C. Reiner (Armory Signing Key)
However,I get
Code:
gpg: Signature made Sun 13 Jan 2013 11:14:32 AM EST using RSA key ID 98832223
gpg: Good signature from "Alan C. Reiner (Armory Signing Key)
gpg: Good signature from "Alan C. Reiner (Armory Signing Key)
Note the date discrepancy.
There are some other differences because my git tag command seems to produce more verbose output, but that is the only one that seems strange to me.
I'm not that experienced with git, especially with tags, so I _think_ this isn't a problem, but can anyone tell me _why_ it isn't (or is) a problem? Maybe the dev re-tagged it at the later date, but I don't know why he would.
Thanks.
By the way, I know there is a newer signed tag (v0.87.2-beta), which is what I'm planning to actually use. But I was just concerned about the discrepancy described above.
Jump to: