On 28/08/18 06:02, Luke Shumaker wrote:
> I'm not particularly attached to whirlpool support, and if your
> reaction is "let's formally drop whirlpool", I wouldn't be upset by
> that.
That is my reaction.
A
On Mon, 27 Aug 2018 16:17:31 -0400,
Eli Schwartz wrote:
> Huh, and we never documented that we supported it in the first place. :/
It did show up in the NEWS file, but no where else.
> No wonder we didn't notice that this would break, and, equally, no
> wonder users didn't hit this in the 2.5 yea
On 8/27/18 4:02 PM, Luke Shumaker wrote:
> From: Luke Shumaker
>
> Commit 9cdfd187 introduced support for whirlpool checksums in v5.0.0.
> However, it was sloppy and missed several places where the list of
> checksums is used. So fix that. In several places, we can take advantage
> of the 'know
From: Luke Shumaker
Commit 9cdfd187 introduced support for whirlpool checksums in v5.0.0.
However, it was sloppy and missed several places where the list of
checksums is used. So fix that. In several places, we can take advantage
of the 'known_hash_algos' variable to simplify things a bit.
Com
