The number of people has been steadily increasing who read our source
code with an editor that thinks tab stops are 4 spaces apart, as
opposed to the traditional tty-derived 8 that the PuTTY code expects.
So I've been wondering for ages about just fixing it, and switching to
a spaces-only policy throughout the code. And I recently found out
about 'git blame -w', which should make this change not too disruptive
for the purposes of source-control archaeology; so perhaps now is the
time.
While I'm at it, I've also taken the opportunity to remove all the
trailing spaces from source lines (on the basis that git dislikes
them, and is the only thing that seems to have a strong opinion one
way or the other).
Apologies to anyone downstream of this code who has complicated patch
sets to rebase past this change. I don't intend it to be needed again.
Both in a new section about reporting vulnerabilities, and in the
section about large attachments (since some large attachments will
surely contain confidential information from the sender).
I've shifted away from using the SVN revision number as a monotonic
version identifier (replacing it in the Windows version resource with
a count of days since an arbitrary epoch), and I've removed all uses
of SVN keyword expansion (replacing them with version information
written out by Buildscr).
While I'm at it, I've done a major rewrite of the affected code which
centralises all the computation of the assorted version numbers and
strings into Buildscr, so that they're all more or less alongside each
other rather than scattered across multiple source files.
I've also retired the MD5-based manifest file system. A long time ago,
it seemed like a good idea to arrange that binaries of PuTTY would
automatically cease to identify themselves as a particular upstream
version number if any changes were made to the source code, so that if
someone made a local tweak and distributed the result then I wouldn't
get blamed for the results. Since then I've decided the whole idea is
more trouble than it's worth, so now distribution tarballs will have
version information baked in and people can just cope with that.
[originally from svn r10262]
to comp.security.ssh, posting queries that are clearly about PuTTY to
newsgroups without actually mentioning PuTTY, and so on. They may have been
directed there by this document :( Add a futile attempt to instil a sense of
etiquette.
[originally from svn r6895]
Discourage more strongly mirrors in well-served areas in the Feedback section.
Also, duplicate that text on the Mirrors page, along with a request to tell us
the country (since lots of people still don't).
[originally from svn r6109]
[this svn revision also touched putty-website]
This was a bit rushed, and could doubtless be improved.
Also fix a couple of things I noted on the way, including:
- "pscp -ls" wasn't documented
- Windows XP wasn't mentioned enough
[originally from svn r5593]
unwritten design principles, so would-be contributors won't have to
either read our minds or pay _very_ close attention to the code.
[originally from svn r4815]
line for every single .but file at the bottom of each page of the
HTML PuTTY docs. However, we can't _always_ replace that with a
single SVN revision, because there isn't always one available (SVN
still allows mixed working copies in which some files are
deliberately checked out against a different revision).
Hence, here's a mechanism for doing better. It uses `svnversion .'
to determine _whether_ a single revision number adequately describes
the current directory, and replaces all the version IDs with that if
so. If it can't do that, it uses the version IDs as before.
Also, this allows an explicit version string to be passed on the
make command line which will override _both_ these possibilities, so
that release documentation can be clearly labelled with the release
version number.
[originally from svn r4804]
I've done this by centralising information about newsgroups in feedback.but
and linking to that from elsewhere; I've also put in a link to Google Groups.
[originally from svn r4781]
case people are incapable of spotting it on the Feedback page. Also
add to both locations Owen's point about first-line support.
[originally from svn r4009]
not sending us large attachments, and in particular remove the
emphasis on screen shots in the hope of also decreasing the number
of _other_ large attachments we get.
[originally from svn r1715]
to give feedback. (I think the latter has suddenly become worthwhile
now we have the ability to distribute a help file; so people won't
have to come to the website for the feedback information.)
[originally from svn r1502]
