[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2ca383370cf365a2fdea73d7ac671603@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 18:44:46 +0100
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: FMT_MAIN_VERSION and formats structure changes (was: Min password length)
On 23 Jan, 2013, at 17:47 , Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com> wrote:
> For unstable, FMT_MAIN_VERSION is 9.
> For bleeding, it is 11.
For bleeding up to a week ago, it was 10.
> Is it acceptable to change the format structure without increasing the
> version number, as long as this changes is only in bleeding?
> (I am not sure where 10 or 11 have been used, except for bleeding.
> If there was a contest edition which used 11, it might not be a good
> idea to change the definition without adjusting FMT_MAIN_VERSION.)
We bump the definition whenever there is need to. There was no need to bump it between eg. the reset() patch and the done() patch because both were merged to bleeding at the same time. When we get set_mask() I will bump it again.
> If we change the format structure again, we should discuss which other
> changes might be included at the same time.
My current plan is to not commit any format struct changes or interface changes to bleeding unless they either come from core CVS or from Solar (or, of course, if they are endorsed by him). So I hope Solar will join such discussions.
magnum
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.
