Re: [PATCH 0/7] gpg-interface cleanups

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:20:09AM +0200, Michael J Gruber wrote: > (With tests, I'm always unsure whether to follow surrounding style or > the style guide; I did the former, Jeff improved the config handling by > doing the latter.) Yes, but I kept the horrendous indentation as a nod to

Re: [PATCH 0/7] gpg-interface cleanups

Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 16.06.2016 20:20: > Jeff King writes: > >> This started off with Michael's patch to sign_buffer, which is at the >> tip, and then me trying to address the possible deadlocks there and in >> verify_signed_buffer. While I was in the area, I took

Re: [PATCH 0/7] gpg-interface cleanups

Jeff King writes: > This started off with Michael's patch to sign_buffer, which is at the > tip, and then me trying to address the possible deadlocks there and in > verify_signed_buffer. While I was in the area, I took the opportunity to > do a few cleanups. > > It's unclear to me

[PATCH 0/7] gpg-interface cleanups

This started off with Michael's patch to sign_buffer, which is at the tip, and then me trying to address the possible deadlocks there and in verify_signed_buffer. While I was in the area, I took the opportunity to do a few cleanups. It's unclear to me whether the deadlocks are possible in