On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 11:10:33AM +0100, Theo Buehler wrote:
> > Why did you rename *crl to *res? For me res is normally more like an
> > integer result. I would prefer if you keep that as crl.
> >
> > Still OK claudio@
>
> I would prefer to keep the refactor/cleanup separate from the behavior
>
> Why did you rename *crl to *res? For me res is normally more like an
> integer result. I would prefer if you keep that as crl.
>
> Still OK claudio@
I would prefer to keep the refactor/cleanup separate from the behavior
change. This change is incomplete and not easy to follow. For example,
ther
On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 10:36:28AM +, Job Snijders wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wasn't entirely happy about how parse_load_crl_from_mft() behaved and
> refactored the function.
>
> The good: if the MFT at hand was located in DIR_TEMP and no matching CRL
> could be found in DIR_TEMP, it would additional
Hi,
I wasn't entirely happy about how parse_load_crl_from_mft() behaved and
refactored the function.
The good: if the MFT at hand was located in DIR_TEMP and no matching CRL
could be found in DIR_TEMP, it would additionally attempt to find a CRL
in DIR_VALID.
The bad: if the MFT at hand was locat
