From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: md5 and sha1 signatures Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 21:53:42 -0300 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1306457634 26205 80.91.229.12 (27 May 2011 00:53:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 00:53:54 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Leo Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri May 27 02:53:50 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QPlJF-0006yM-VP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 27 May 2011 02:53:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59081 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QPlJF-0005QN-EM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 26 May 2011 20:53:49 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:51280) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QPlJC-0005Q7-Iv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 26 May 2011 20:53:47 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QPlJB-0005S6-R9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 26 May 2011 20:53:46 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:57078) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QPlJB-0005S2-Pb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 26 May 2011 20:53:45 -0400 Original-Received: from 213-159-126-200.fibertel.com.ar ([200.126.159.213]:33902 helo=ceviche.home) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QPlJB-0001U6-AI; Thu, 26 May 2011 20:53:45 -0400 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 26B576610E; Thu, 26 May 2011 21:53:42 -0300 (ART) In-Reply-To: (Leo's message of "Thu, 26 May 2011 17:38:45 +0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.10 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:139748 Archived-At: > Since there is only one user of sha1's BINARY arg namely canlock-sha1 in > the source tree, I wonder if it is worthwhile to make md5 and sha1 have > similar signature: > (md5 OBJECT &optional START END CODING-SYSTEM NOERROR BINARY) > (sha1 OBJECT &optional START END CODING-SYSTEM NOERROR BINARY) > What do you think? I don't think it's worth the trouble. Stefan