➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author larry
Recipients Zooko.Wilcox-O'Hearn, christian.heimes, corona10, gregory.p.smith, jstasiak, kmaork, larry, mgorny, oconnor663, xtreak
Date 2022-03-23.00:17:11
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1647994632.12.0.504187056038.issue39298@roundup.psfhosted.org>
In-reply-to
Content 
> Given that I don't want to see us gain new vendored copies of
> significant but non-critical third party hash code in our tree
> (Modules/_blake3/impl/ in PR 31686) for anything but a known
> fixed term need (ex: the sha2 libtomcrypt code is gone from
> our tree as was clearly going to happen from the start),
> the only way I think we should include blake3 support is if
> there is already a plan for that code to leave our tree in
> the future with a high probability of success.

You've said what you want, but not why.  It sounds like you are against merging the BLAKE3 PR containing its own impl.  Why?
History
Date User Action Args
2022-03-23 00:17:12larrysetrecipients: + larry, gregory.p.smith, christian.heimes, mgorny, Zooko.Wilcox-O'Hearn, jstasiak, oconnor663, corona10, xtreak, kmaork
2022-03-23 00:17:12larrysetmessageid: <1647994632.12.0.504187056038.issue39298@roundup.psfhosted.org>
2022-03-23 00:17:12larrylinkissue39298 messages
2022-03-23 00:17:11larrycreate