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 20:52:57 +0200
From: magnum <>
Subject: Re: Mask mode integration with bleeding.

On 9 Aug, 2013, at 19:16 , Sayantan Datta <> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Solar Designer <> 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?


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.