Why 2.1 is delayed for so long

Werner Koch wk at gnupg.org
Tue Sep 23 16:23:53 CEST 2014

On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 15:25, infinity0 at pwned.gg said:

> You are being hasty and this is extremely unproductive logic. We are
> talking about what the defaults *should be*. You know that it's

You are talking about this.  In fact you suggest to change lots of
things without taking the standards and the expectations of the
existing users in account.

I am all in favor for changes to make the use easier.  Adding new
features and changing the long established defaults is just the

> want to test the validity of my ideas in the market. Your ultimatum is
> about as short-sighted as saying "if you don't like the laws, get out
> of the country".

I am not in a position to issue an ultimatum and won't do that in any
case.  I merely said that your suggestion of an extra key won't be the
default and remarked that you are free to change the defaults.  Oh wait:
You may also contact me at my company address and ask for a quote to
change and maintain a version of GnuPG changed to your suites; or ask
someone else for example those listed at https://gnupg.org/service.html .

> No, I did not. If you expect people to notice this, you should mention
> this when a key is generated, and also in the man page.

Care to read the NEWS?

  Noteworthy changes in version 2.1.0-beta751 (2014-07-03)
   * gpg: Make export of secret keys work again.
   * gpg: Create revocation certificates during key generation.

and please recall that this is about a beta version, we are on a devel
list and that there are bugs in the code and definitely in the docs.



Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.

More information about the Gnupg-devel mailing list