[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP153ADEEB7A0C2DCE1722EA8FDFF0@phx.gbl>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 23:35:02 +0200
From: Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: RFC: Add --list=format-details support?
On 06/19/2012 10:07 PM, magnum wrote:
> On 2012-06-19 18:56, Frank Dittrich wrote:
>> The attached patch is not intended to be applied as-is.
>
> Ah, you know I'm trigger-happy :)
>
>> May be other format details than those I picked are more important (or
>> interesting as well), may be I should't use %d to printf
>> format->params.flags, may be I should print format->params.format_name
>> as the last column instead of as the second column, and so on.
>
> The reason I do like to commit experimental patches like this one is
> that otherwise I'll never *really* test it.
>
>> May be we just replace the current --list=formats output
>
> I think not. They have different use scenarios. I think this is fine.
What is your usage scenario for --list=formats?
For --list=format-details I am just worried that we didn't think enough
about the exact output format, about other information that should be
included.
At least prior to releasing the next jumbo version, we should either be
sure that a future change is unlikely, or we should release the next
jumbo version without --list=format-details, and wait until we collect
some more requirements for GUI development etc.
Frank
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
