Re: 03/03: doc: Update to cover for an additional OpenPGP signing key.

[Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com>]

Hi!

Julien Lepiller <julien@lepiller.eu> writes:

> Agreed :)
>
> Le 4 mai 2021 05:08:24 GMT-04:00, "Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org> a écrit :
>>Hi!
>>
>>guix-commits@gnu.org skribis:
>>
>>> commit 0f583f60f882d74f4cf2332c85343a2db67410c7
>>> Author: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com>
>>> AuthorDate: Sat May 1 22:35:09 2021 -0400
>>>
>>>     doc: Update to cover for an additional OpenPGP signing key.
>>>     
>>>     The upcoming 1.3.0 release will be signed with my OpenPGP key;
>>subsequent
>>>     releases may also be.
>>>     
>>>     * doc/guix.texi (OPENPGP-SIGNING-KEY-ID,
>>OPENPGP-SIGNING-KEY-URL): Rename to...
>>>     (OPENPGP-SIGNING-KEY-ID-1, OPENPGP-SIGNING-KEY-URL-1): ... these,
>>>     respectively.
>>>     (OPENPGP-SIGNING-KEY-ID-2, OPENPGP-SIGNING-KEY-URL-2): New
>>variables.
>>>     (Binary Installation): Adjust to cover for the new key.
>>>     (USB Stick and DVD Installation): Likewise.
>>>     (Invoking guix refresh): Adjust accordingly.
>>
>>No big deal but perhaps it would be enough to keep a single key in the
>>manual since we know which key is going to be used for this release.
>>
>>That would avoid extra work for our translation maester, and it would
>>make sure we don’t endlessly accumulate keys in there as release
>>responsibilities rotate.  WDYT?

Oh, it didn't strike me as an option, as it'd not cover past releases.
Perhaps not a common use case, but the past releases are still available
for download, so someone could want to install them, perhaps just to
compare what changed or decide if some problem is regression.

I don't mind making the change otherwise; what do you think?

Thank you!

Maxim