bpo-33164: Blake2 dependency update #6286
Conversation
ghost
changed the title
|
Had been fixed the windows build issue (had been pushed upstream too). |
ghost
mentioned this pull request
Modules/_blake2/impl/blake2-impl.h
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Where these HAVE_* macros come from?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good point. I regenerated configure.ac/configure in the last commit.
|
Please revert |
|
I want more verbose NEWS entry (e.g. "Updated blake2 implementation which uses secure memset implementation provided by platform.") |
|
Any update ? :) |
|
One builder is failing. Please rebase your PR and push again. This should trigger a rebuild. |
tiran
left a comment
tiran
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The code in Modules/_blake2/impl is a copy of the reference implementation from https://github.com/BLAKE2. Please get your patch into the reference implementation first.
|
A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated. Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase |
|
Module code updated. |
|
@dcarlier-afilias, please rebase to fix merge conflicts. Thanks! |
|
Hello, and thanks for your contribution! I'm a bot set up to make sure that the project can legally accept your contribution by verifying you have signed the PSF contributor agreement (CLA). Unfortunately we couldn't find an account corresponding to your GitHub username on bugs.python.org (b.p.o) to verify you have signed the CLA (this might be simply due to a missing "GitHub Name" entry in your b.p.o account settings). This is necessary for legal reasons before we can look at your contribution. Please follow the steps outlined in the CPython devguide to rectify this issue. You can check yourself to see if the CLA has been received. Thanks again for your contribution, we look forward to reviewing it! |
|
Any chance it lands for 3.8 or will it be 3.9 (at best) ? thx. |
|
@dcarlier-afilias, this is a massive change, so my guess is that it would be difficult to land it in 3.8. I had flagged @tiran and @methane for review and asked for the rebase just to begin the process.
I assume you took care of @tiran's original review comment? My guess is that you did based on your followup comment, but I just want to make sure. |
|
I pushed upstream what I deemed necessary within a year indeed. I hope it is ok. |
|
@dcarlier-afilias, looks like I was wrong about it landing in 3.8. 🙂 Thank you for the contribution! @methane, thank you for the review and the merge! 🎉 🎉 |
5 participants
Updating the module following-up recent changes
BLAKE2/libb2@620681a
https://bugs.python.org/issue33164