[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <456eac5b7b4ec85e14464f847aeb2da2@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 16:15:15 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Mask mode integration with bleeding.
On 9 Aug, 2013, at 10:35 , Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
> Sayantan, magnum, Lukas -
>
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 01:11:26PM +0530, Sayantan Datta wrote:
>> I think we should fork another repo which will have up-to-date current
>> bleeding along with my mask-mode commits. I expect all new commits to main
>> bleeding to go into the new repo as well. I'll check new commits and
>> discuss if it has any potential interference with mask mode stuffs. This
>> way main bleeding will remain 100% bug free and I can maintain mask-mode as
>> close to main-bleeding as possible.
>
> I like this approach. The only reason why I did not suggest it is that
> it may be more work for Sayantan, but since Sayantan himself proposes
> it, let's do it.
Sounds good to me too.
>
>> magnum can you fork another repo from main-bleeding name it PG-test(or
>> whatever seems suitable) ?
>
> Let's use some new name, to avoid confusion with myrice's work. I like
> to be able to refer to myrice's tree as PG-test.
>
> How about calling it bleeding-mask?
I too think bleeding-mask is better. And like Dhiru said, you don't need me for this - you can push new branches directly.
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.
