Re: [Integrit-devel] cosmetic fixes

[Ed L. C. <ec...@no...>]

On 10/6/05, Yuri D'Elia <wa...@yu...> wrote:

...
> I've got time only today to merge the changes.
> Now cvs holds all the changes, test works fine:
>
> integrit: ---- integrit, version 4.0 -----------------

Sounds great.

> yet the documentation needs to be updated before the release.
> README should probably include the reasons of RMD160 choice.

Yes, I agree.

> faq and integrit infos mention MD5 and SHA1. I'd say to remove
> entirely the hash name in the docs, use the generic term "checksum"
> and include a small section to introduce the hash algorithm used.

That's up to you.  I think, though, that the fact that
the checksum names are so easy to find in the sources
makes it easy to find and update any reference to a
specific algorithm on the rare occasion that it changes.

> Also mention somewhere that 4.0 breaks the db (not really,
> but all checksums will differ). I don't have time to do it now,
> so I think the release will wait until the end of the week.

That notice should be prominent in the release notes
and probably the README.  Somewhere (README?)
we could mention in the same breath that if you need
to keep and use your old databases, you should keep
an old version of integrit with them.

That will help head off requests that integrit 4 support
the old checksum algorithms.

--
  Ed L. Cashin <ec...@no...>