On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 8:04 AM Ard Biesheuvel [off-list ref] wrote:

On 2 October 2018 at 05:45, Jason A. Donenfeld [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi Herbert,

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 5:39 AM Herbert Xu [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

I would also strongly prefer that all crypto work is taken through
Herbert's tree, so we have a coherent view of it before it goes
upstream.

I agree.  I don't have any problems with the zinc code living in
its own git tree.  But any upstream merges should definitely go
through the crypto tree because the inherent ties between the two
code-base.

I can send you pull requests then if there are development cycles when
there are in fact relations between the two trees. I'll update the
commit message describing Zinc to include this.

Can you explain why you it is so important to you that your changes
remain outside the crypto tree?

Also, I still think the name Zinc (zinc is not crypto/) is needlessly
divisive and condescending, and unsaying it (in v2 and up) doesn't
really work on the Internet (especially since you are still repeating
it in your conference talk.)

I've been following the drama^Wdiscussion on the zinc for a long time now
and I also think that "zinc" is a misleading name.
Jason, you seem to hate the existing crypto framework with passion,
and the name reflects that.
Since we all agree that the framework can do better and your patches actually
make it better, please just rename it to something that reflects what
it is, a base
framework. I think Ard already suggested "crypto/base/" or "crypto/core/".

-- 
Thanks,
//richard