On Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 7:05:58 PM UTC-4, Ben Fritz wrote: > On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Charles E Campbell > <[email protected]> wrote: > > if libraries are used, the system may update the library (while one > > is on holiday), potentially rendering encrypted text unreadable. I know > > that these things should be done in a backwards compatible fashion, but > > Murphy's Law plus having many users guarantees trouble will happen. > > > > I agree that libraries will get better testing, though. > > > > Good point. So we should be sure to link statically to the library. > > Of course if the system updates to a new Vim we could still have the problem. > > > It sounds like once the encryption is finished we should add a reference > version encrypted file to the tests, and test that vim can decrypt it. Then > the test will fail if a library update breaks the decryption.
I have read many good points here and would like to share some of my thoughts. The focus of Vim should be still on editor. It does not need to repeat all the hard work that has been done in other projects (e.g., gpg, openssl). The built-in encryption function can be just a few (or just one) good schemes using symmetric-key algorithms. People have different opinion/preferences on ciphers. My opinion is to take a well studied (and maybe popular) method. For example, AES CCMP (or maybe the 256-bit version). Another effort is to provide really good support to use 3rd party software so people can use whatever software (e.g., gpg, openssl, 7zip, etc.) they like. Thanks. -- -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
