On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 05:52:09PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote: > So you're switching the code for a possible future > In an earlier series/cover letter you wrote > > > The goal of this series to improve type-checking in the codebase and to > > make it easier to move to a different hash function if the project > > decides to do that. This series does not convert all of the codebase, > > but only parts. I've dropped some of the patches from earlier (which no > > longer apply) and added others. > > Which yields the question if you also want to take care of the error message > (It may not be a SHA1 any more but some $HASHFUNCTION)? This is true. However, I'll clean those up with a future patch series when we get to that point. I'll need to pass through the documentation as well to make it accurate and consistent, and I'll want to discuss the words we want to use before I make those changes. > That said I'll focus on the type checking part in this review > and not annotate the SHA1s I find any more. ;) Please do comment on any hardcoded 20s or 40s (or quantities based off those), as I do want to fix those up. I want to fix up any hardcoded assumptions we may have about the hash that don't involve text or documentation at this point, if only for maintainability reasons. -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature