No problem will do that later

Thanks, will be very useful :)

good feature

It's not about packaging, it's about shasum and the way to check if download artifact is not corrupt.

When i wrote "it's not about packaging", i answered to your previous question "I thought"...

State changed as code fixing the issue is committed

State changed as build #3288 is successful

Would it make sense to name checksum files *.sha256 so it is clear which algorithm has been used to produce them?

Maven for example also produces files *.jar.md5, *.jar.sha1, etc.

@robin Can't reopen issue and also it doesn't seem like the email reply I made has been posted... it has been a few minutes so it should have scraped it...

Jan 24 22:49:25 email postfix/smtp[1614]: 9D3A910A137D: to=<support+issue~1150@onedev.io>, relay=onedev-io.mail.protection.outlook.com[104.47.26.74]:25, delay=4.7, delays=0.14/0.03/2.1/2.4, dsn=2.6.0, status=sent (250 2.6.0 <2ba9a8a1-6f13-d4f4-94bb-747d77aa03f2@polarian.dev>

It hit your microsoft relay, this is not an issue on my end...

Anyways seen as the email is not going to show up I may as well post it:

Hello,

I would have thought this would have been self explanatory, to use the algorithm as the file extension but it seems Robin has not done this.

Robin you should ideally change this so that the file extension is the checksum algorithm you are using, for sha256 it should be <filename>.sha256 as suggested by Jbauer, thus I am going to reopen this issue! 

@polarian this is a bug, will fix it soon.