Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 05:40:58 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: self-test duration vs. GPU benchmarks

On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 11:12:05PM +0100, magnum wrote:
> On 5 Dec, 2012, at 21:27 , Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 01:40:40AM +0100, magnum wrote:
> >> As core John development has come to a full halt I have now merged this 
> >> patch to unstable-jumbo instead of just to bleeding. We'll want it in 
> >> Jumbo-8 anyway.
> > 
> > I'm not so sure about jumbo-8, but it appears that you've decided for
> > me, and I have no grounds to object - it is my fault that I haven't
> > released a new core version yet.  I am sorry about that.  I do intend to
> > resume core John development.
> 
> I'm perfectly fine with going directly towards 1.8-jumbo-1, if that is what you mean. In fact I would prefer that. I assumed you'd want a jumbo-8 given the huge difference between J7 and unstable. OTOH we never manage to "feature freeze" the tree anyway - it always makes people commit more :-)

I meant that we could leave 1.7.9-jumbo-8 without some of the fixes
prepared for 1.8'ish core (and corresponding jumbo).  Nevermind.

> > Aren't you merging the patch that
> > adds done() now?  Anyhow, you're the one to decide on this, as someone
> > more active at JtR development than I am. ;-)
> 
> I was going to merge them long ago, and in hindsight I'm really glad I never did. I really want those patches but merging them [to bleeding but not unstable] will lead to a lot of trouble until next core is actually released. And that could be a year from now from all I know (no offense!). Keeping two (let alone three as we had for a while) git trees apart is a constant source of confusion and extra work. I need to back-port and forward-port stuff that people commit to different (wrong) branches. It was much worse when we had jumbo-6-fixes. Currently it's just the v10 format struct and that's OK. If I merge the done/reset/etc patches now, it would get out of hands.

I'm not sure what you did merge now, then.

As to my plans for releasing a new core version, this should happen no
later than April 2013.

> So the best solution for me would be to freeze (and just forget) the current unstable-jumbo branch right away and continue work in bleeding-jumbo only. This conclusion was not clear to me until right now, as I wrote this %-)

OK, so what do we base 1.7.9-jumbo-8 on, if we release that (some time
before 1.8)?  Would it be unstable-jumbo or bleeding-jumbo?

Alexander

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ