Brian W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> If they're not in the public headers, I don't think it's a problem.
>
> This is not a big deal--I am correcting an oversight.
+1, and +1 to applying this patch to 1.2 branch in the case of a 1.2.3
release.
And +1 to making this the convention.
I believe we have to rid ourselves of MD5 (so do our dev/users) and therefore
more SHA choices in the public API are very good things. But that change can
absolutely happen -after- this change, which is good in and of itself.
Bill
|