Larry Hastings <la...@hastings.org> added the comment:
> Given that I don't want to see us gain new vendored copies of > significant but non-critical third party hash code in our tree > (Modules/_blake3/impl/ in PR 31686) for anything but a known > fixed term need (ex: the sha2 libtomcrypt code is gone from > our tree as was clearly going to happen from the start), > the only way I think we should include blake3 support is if > there is already a plan for that code to leave our tree in > the future with a high probability of success. You've said what you want, but not why. It sounds like you are against merging the BLAKE3 PR containing its own impl. Why? ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue39298> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
