Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:14:50 +0100
From: magnum <>
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 <> 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).


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.