From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 10 08:30:11 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2B4E16A4CE; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:30:11 +0000 (GMT) Received: from storm.uk.FreeBSD.org (storm.uk.FreeBSD.org [194.242.157.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 258EE43D4C; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:30:11 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) Received: from storm.uk.FreeBSD.org (uucp@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by storm.uk.FreeBSD.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j2A8U9DK099064; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:30:09 GMT (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) Received: (from uucp@localhost)j2A8U81C099063; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:30:08 GMT (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) Received: from grondar.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grovel.grondar.org (8.13.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j2A8TJm9081256; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:29:19 GMT (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) Message-Id: <200503100829.j2A8TJm9081256@grovel.grondar.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.0 06/18/2004 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Colin Percival From: Mark Murray In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 10 Mar 2005 00:18:07 PST." <423002BF.5010202@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:29:19 +0000 Sender: mark@grondar.org cc: Peter Jeremy cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.ORG cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libmd Makefile sha256.3 sha256.h sha256c.c shadriver.c src/sbin/md5 Makefile md5.c X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:30:11 -0000 Colin Percival writes: > Peter Jeremy wrote: > > Three almost, > > but not totally, identical versions of foo() means three times as much > > maintenance effort and a non-zero probability of someone forgetting > > to make a change to one of the versions. > > Absolutely -- but this isn't particularly relevant for hash functions, > since hash functions don't get upgraded to newer versions or have new > features added. (Ok, they do, but they get a new name and the old > versions are left unchanged.) But they do have bugs fixed or are optimised. M -- Mark Murray iumop ap!sdn w,I idlaH