From fd5f082fbce6e99d7f456926425b64df93e454bd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joey Hess Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2022 12:29:32 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] comment --- ...2_7be0932328ba4f49c33b0ab14429a283._comment | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/bugs/blake3_hash_support/comment_2_7be0932328ba4f49c33b0ab14429a283._comment diff --git a/doc/bugs/blake3_hash_support/comment_2_7be0932328ba4f49c33b0ab14429a283._comment b/doc/bugs/blake3_hash_support/comment_2_7be0932328ba4f49c33b0ab14429a283._comment new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..e4bbda8c59 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/bugs/blake3_hash_support/comment_2_7be0932328ba4f49c33b0ab14429a283._comment @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ +[[!comment format=mdwn + username="joey" + subject="""comment 2""" + date="2022-12-12T16:22:17Z" + content=""" +Thanks for the patch. + +I do think it would make sense to include "256" in the name of the backend, +unless BLAKE3 recommends against using other lengths for some good reason. + +As for accepting this patch, the added dependency makes it harder. This +would require distributions like Debian add the blake3 package. If +cryptonite included it, that would be much easier -- though it would still +need ifdefs to support the old versions of crytonite for some time. + +Going the current route with adding a blake3 depdenency would need to start +with it as a build flag.. +"""]]