Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> - these callers are safe to use the fast (and potentially non-collision >> + these callers are safe to use the unsafe (and potentially non-collision >> detecting) SHA-1 implementation. > > Is the "and potentially non-collision detecting" parenthetical comment > still needed now that it's referred to as unsafe? Even if we keep > most of it, maybe we should drop the "and"? I appreciate a careful reading like this. The use of "unsafe" becomes easier to understandable if we lost "potentially", e.g. are safe to use the unsafe SHA-1 implementation that does not attempt to detect collisions. >> - , and generate the resulting "clone" much faster, in only 11.597 seconds >> + , and generate the resulting "clone" much unsafeer, in only 11.597 seconds > > This fast->unsafe translation isn't so good; this one should be undone. Or "much less safe", but that is not something we want to brag about ;-) > ... > This patch was also fast->unsafe translations; I identified two above > that I think should get some tweaks. Thanks for carefully reading.
