Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:14:50 +0100 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: descrypt-opencl "section 0" fix On 2013-10-30 12:43, Solar Designer wrote: > Sayantan, magnum - > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 02:16:09PM +0530, Sayantan Datta wrote: >> On 10/30/13, magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote: >>> These changes in 0c2259b as well as other changes in 1c5e1e5 has not >>> been merged to the bleeding-mask branch because of conflicts. You get to >>> do that. BTW I'm really growing tired of maintaining bleeding-mask, >>> nothing seems to happen there anyway? >> >> I didn't had much free time lately, so there wasn't much progress in >> the bleeding-mask branch, As you mentioned earlier CPU mask mode is >> slower than incremental mode, I'll work on that. Also what are our >> expectations with bleeding-mask ? Do we want to release it as jumbo >> someday ? > > I don't currently have expectations regarding bleeding-mask. I need to > find time to release bleeding-jumbo as a new jumbo first, and only then > to look at bleeding-mask more closely. Depending on what shape I find > it in, yes, it might become a new jumbo release someday (and then it'll > be the base for further jumbo development). +1. Right after next Jumbo is released I'd like to merge bleeding-mask into bleeding-jumbo - provided you/we can get it in enough shape (eg. better tuning to weak devices and no known false negatives). I really want GPU mask mode into the main Git tree(s). 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.