[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <035801cd5e1d$1b0ad650$512082f0$@net>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 16:52:15 -0500
From: "jfoug" <jfoug@....net>
To: <john-dev@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: RE: magnum-jumbo and magnum-bleeding (NOT J7), and the source() function
>From: magnum [mailto:john.magnum@...hmail.com]
>> 3. Get jumbo-bleed updated with these changes.
>>
>> 4. Move these changes into magnum-jumbo (since we have a Jumbo-
>7RC
>> branch of git). Once this is done, bleeding and jumbo should be back
>to
>> being much more 'similar' to each other.
>
>Thinks that should be in magnum-jumbo should enter the tree in magnum-
>jumbo, and propagate to bleeding. The other way round works too but is
>trickier to merge, and history looks weird afterwards (patches listed
>twice).
I do not know enough about how git will merge this to comment 'too' much
about this. The reason I listed it this way, is that it already IS in
bleeding, although with wrong name. Thus, it would be trivial to get
bleeding as it stands updated.
However if bleeding is simply a set of patches 'OFF' of the magnum-jumbo
branch, then yes, I think you are right, and we should change the
magnum-jumbo branch, and then the bleed would simply contain fewer changes.
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.
