Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > We should also consider using `test-tool genrandom <seed>` instead (where > `<seed>` would have to be predictable, but probably would have to change > between `gen_nonce()` calls). Yup, that is exactly why I asked Sean about randomness requirement. It turns out that they care only about uniqueness, so the comparison is between keeping an ever-incrementing counter and (1) echoing its current contents and/or (2) feeding it to "test-tool genrandom" as the seed. The complexity of the code _we_ need to write anew is the same, but echo would probably be a win in both the number of forks and cycles departments. Thanks.
