why not SHA-512?

Why sha-512? (compute time would be one reason why 256 vs 512)

I don't have a good answer, that's why I pinged @till and @puiterwijk also on IRC. Not sure if 256 is enough or if we really want 512.
I'm ok w/ changing, just wanted to hear from more people what they think :)

@pingou compute time doesn't sound like a valid argument (welcome to XXI). Also SHA256 is just cut SHA512, so it should not be anytime faster =)

Honestly I would argue for switching to SHA-3 family, but... =)

P.S. we use SHA-512 in dist-git for lookaside..

It looks good to me. I was not aware that there is only one directory with all release. Maybe it would be a good idea to rename the file to CHECKSUMS or 00-CHECKSUMS to make sure that it is usually at the top of the directory listing.

It's one directory per project not for all, but otherwise yes.

I'll rename the file.

File renamed and hinted for in the html :)

Thank you, +1

Thanks! :)