Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 16:15:15 +0200
From: magnum <>
Subject: Re: Mask mode integration with bleeding.

On 9 Aug, 2013, at 10:35 , Solar Designer <> 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.


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.