Matches for patch, 1691 total results Sorted by newest | relevance
Thu Jan 21 13:46:59 UTC 2016 <mircea_popescu> <copypaste> i've even seen "security patches" where the patch was to make the stack bigger, even though the stack was the right size to begin with << mitigation amirite.
Thu Jan 21 13:28:46 UTC 2016 <copypaste> i've even seen "security patches" where the patch was to make the stack bigger, even though the stack was the right size to begin with
Thu Jan 21 00:58:28 UTC 2016 <ben_vulpes> mod6: didja ever share an actual patch for the code you're working on? brief face-grep through logs reveals nada
Wed Jan 20 16:24:12 UTC 2016 <mod6> im thinking maybe, worst case, i can make a patch with just the -lows code in there, and then wait to get the rest figured out later for -highs
Wed Jan 20 16:20:49 UTC 2016 <mod6> had some strange issue when testing my high/low patch lastnight; worked well when it was just if(fLowS) { // low-s Code } else { //orig der code }, but when i had 'if(fLowS) { // low-s } else if(fHighS) { // high-s } else { // orig code }', tx's that I created wern't getting picked up at all.
Mon Jan 18 19:50:55 UTC 2016 <ben_vulpes> what is this patch to disable asics?
Mon Jan 18 19:29:10 UTC 2016 <danielpbarron> if you want to talk about V like you would talk about the Bible, you need hooks to point to (like chapter verse). so in V terms is this signed patch and line number or something?
Mon Jan 18 19:18:58 UTC 2016 <danielpbarron> what like "so and so patch begag such and such patch" ?
Mon Jan 18 16:18:41 UTC 2016 <jurov> i did not say anything about comfort, either. how do you propose bundling the patch spanning several files where hunks don't make sense individually?
Mon Jan 18 16:12:01 UTC 2016 <mod6> we could do it that way, it /may/ make things easier in the sense of V -- we've been doing it the way we are to keep the patch count low iirc.
Mon Jan 18 16:03:32 UTC 2016 <ascii_butugychag> what i say is that REGARDLESS of the names, if THE CRYPTO is valid, it is a VALID patch/seal tuple.
Mon Jan 18 16:03:15 UTC 2016 <ascii_butugychag> but you also gotta consider what your box will do if it gets an inappropriately (for whatever reason) named patch.
Mon Jan 18 16:01:27 UTC 2016 <ascii_butugychag> this means that if jurov's box has to verify my patch against every known sig every single time it presses to post to www, SO SHOULD MINE
Mon Jan 18 15:58:54 UTC 2016 <ascii_butugychag> the O(N^2) instrinsic runtime of unknown-patch-bag+unknown-sig-bag is something i realized from the start
Mon Jan 18 15:57:01 UTC 2016 <ascii_butugychag> (or rather, a slightly improved 'v' will run, existing one requires patch name to remain same)
Mon Jan 18 15:56:39 UTC 2016 <ascii_butugychag> v will run if you rename the patch to 'fuckyou' and the sig to 'fuckapig'
Mon Jan 18 15:47:15 UTC 2016 <ascii_butugychag> more than one person signs a patch
Mon Jan 18 15:31:20 UTC 2016 <mod6> which, i think is fine because then i can sign that patch and call it: asciilifeform-kills-integer-retardation.vpatch.mod6.sig
Sun Jan 17 03:42:22 UTC 2016 <assbot> Logged on 16-01-2016 22:31:04; mod6: the idea of V is a versioning system based upon patches that include SHA512 hashes of the file before and after the given patch is applied -- and checks the given signatures of the wot entities who have signed off on the patch.
Sun Jan 17 02:14:47 UTC 2016 <mod6> <+guruvan> mod6: bitcoin docker image is up - just testing now - patch wasn't working for me, so it's manually applied << ah, you had it build from V?