Andriy Utkin

The fix comes in three pieces. 1. The minor-stable-release branch (`release/0.x`?) should take three backport commits. https://github.com/rnpgp/rnp/pull/1874 2. The master branch of RNP repo should take the increment of version.txt...

@ni4 a couple of things which I thought of doing here in addition to this bare minimum are armoring support in flags and a meaningful test. What else would you...

> It would be nice to test that exported signature can be imported back and successfully verified. Amended the test in the last commit. Please re-review.

@ronaldtse may I pick this up?

In fact our typical CI runner spends 8+ minutes just setting up the stage for configuration and building the codebase. See e.g. https://github.com/rnpgp/rnp/runs/7343968509?check_suite_focus=true The relevant bits are > Run yum...

> we'll just remove CI runs but will not drop CentOS 7 support I think it's widely expected that distros which are claimed to be supported are actually tested in...

Fine, but we still need to somehow tell the release from a master branch. A couple other ways I see here. Does any of them look good to you? 1....

> In this particular case we got problems on ruby-rnp side since planned next version was v0.17.0. Having knowledge that key expiration time commits would be included into v0.16.1, we...

> But how in practice we could need something inbetween v0.16.0 and v0.16.1? During release preparation, for example, for PRs backporting individual features.

Legit issue. Happy to take it. Would love to see what @ronaldtse or @ni4 think about its priority, though.