> The way the os module seems to reference posix, I don't believe we will run
> into any platform dependencies...
Ahhh, gotcha. My understanding of the usage was backwards (I thought
that you planned to provide posix as the new argument). In that case
looks good to merge, will do tomorrow morning
The way the os module seems to reference posix, I don't believe we will run
into any platform dependencies. Since os determines what environment it is
in then references either itself or an appropriate external module (such as
posix) in __dict__, it should always work.
With os.readlink, the issue
Hi,
jvoisin wrote (19 Jun 2012 01:53:43 GMT) :
> I am sorry but I won't be able to pursue/achieve my GSoC[1] for
> personal reasons that I prefer not disclose on a public
> mailing list.
Sorry about this.
I hope things will be better for you soon.
If we can help, please feel free to ask.
I'd rat
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Robert Ransom wrote:
> On 6/19/12, Nick Mathewson wrote:
>> Filename: 202-improved-relay-crypto.txt
>
>> Any new approach should be able to coexist on a circuit
>> with the old approach. That is, if Alice wants to build a
>> circuit through Bob1, Bob2, a
On 6/19/12, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> Filename: 202-improved-relay-crypto.txt
>Any new approach should be able to coexist on a circuit
>with the old approach. That is, if Alice wants to build a
>circuit through Bob1, Bob2, and Bob3, and only Bob2 supports a
>revised relay protocol,
Filename: 202-improved-relay-crypto.txt
Title: Two improved relay encryption protocols for Tor cells
Author: Nick Mathewson
Created: 19 Jun 2012
Status: Open
Overview:
This document describes two candidate designs for a better Tor
relay encryption/decryption protocol, designed to stymie ta
Hi Eric.
> First, to clarify our github repository situation...
gotcha
> Next, in continuing work on the unit tests for proc.py, we ran into another
> issue with the mocking code.
Nice catch, though for your example (os.readlink) won't this make the
tests platform dependent? Currently Beck (an
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:30 PM, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
> On 06/18/2012 11:26 PM, Nick Mathewson wrote:
>> This list of open Tor proposals is based on one I sent out in May of
>> last year. Since I'd like to do this more regularly, I have added to
>> each description the date when I wrote it. Mo
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:40 PM, ahmed wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 17:26 -0400, Nick Mathewson wrote:
>> 194 Mnemonic .onion URLs
>
> Hello:
>
> I made a post about that topic in February, and it seems no one was
> interested. I can implement a dictionary compiler and address resolver.
>
>