From: Ard Biesheuvel Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 00/23] WireGuard: Secure Network Tunnel Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 08:04:04 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20181002033908.324yhwqaohfsq65d@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: Herbert Xu , Eric Biggers , LKML , Netdev , Linux Crypto Mailing List , David Miller , Greg Kroah-Hartman To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org On 2 October 2018 at 05:45, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > Hi Herbert, > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 5:39 AM Herbert Xu wrote: >> > 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.)