Message415842
> 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? |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2022-03-23 00:17:12 | larry | set | recipients:
+ larry, gregory.p.smith, christian.heimes, mgorny, Zooko.Wilcox-O'Hearn, jstasiak, oconnor663, corona10, xtreak, kmaork |
2022-03-23 00:17:12 | larry | set | messageid: <1647994632.12.0.504187056038.issue39298@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
2022-03-23 00:17:12 | larry | link | issue39298 messages |
2022-03-23 00:17:11 | larry | create | |
|