Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 20:52:57 +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 19:16 , Sayantan Datta <std2048@...il.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote: >> 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. > > magnum: I have forked a new repo bleeding-mask. Will you please push the future core changes to this repo as well when you push to main-bleeding? Will you revert your problematic commits that are now present in bleeding-jumbo or should I do it? We need to do this *now* before things diverge out of control. Actually, I think you should do this: 1. revert each problematic commit from bleeding-jumbo 2. merge bleeding-jumbo into bleeding-mask 3. cherry-pick the same commits to bleeding-mask so they now appear only in that branch. From that point on, we'll be able to merge anything from bleeding-jumbo into bleeding-mask with little problems even though the branches will diverge. If you don't feel confident with this I can do it for you. Just hold off from committing anything for now and supply me a list of the commits to revert (in short hash form, eg. 0965d1a). Or should I revert any commits you have made from a certain date/time on? 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.