Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

1.9.0-jumbo-2 #3979

Closed
magnumripper opened this issue May 20, 2019 · 11 comments
Closed

1.9.0-jumbo-2 #3979

magnumripper opened this issue May 20, 2019 · 11 comments
Labels

Comments

@magnumripper
Copy link
Member

magnumripper commented May 20, 2019

I just renamed the milestone "Later than jumbo-1" to "Later than jumbo-2".

Please review 1.9.0-jumbo-2 and Later than 1.9.0-jumbo-2 and move stuff between them as needed.

@magnumripper magnumripper added this to the 1.9.0-jumbo-2 milestone May 20, 2019
@magnumripper magnumripper pinned this issue May 20, 2019
@claudioandre-br
Copy link
Member

We lack developers! These are tasks I can't handle:

  • It would be interesting if we can put some effort on testing (TS in special).
    • edge cases, mute false positives, etc.
  • We need more hardware available for testing.
  • Change how core handle --self-test (there is an issue for this, I guess).
  • It would be nice if we could automate testing for OpenCL on a real GPU.

@magnumripper
Copy link
Member Author

It would be interesting if we can put some effort on testing (TS in special).

Aye. The TS is good but it needs some rework (IIRC there are ideas/issues in that repo). I don't have time for that at all but if we had a dedicated volunteer I could probably spew out tens of enhancement ideas.

Right now I think its -internal option is most important simply because it doesn't need attention as soon as @kholia adds a new format - it just works. But it does have its false positives (or is it negatives?) and at least we should hard-code muting them.

For testing edge case and other stuff, the original functionality is better but needs some work for every new format.

@solardiz
Copy link
Member

We need more hardware available for testing.

What hardware do we need and why?

Change how core handle --self-test (there is an issue for this, I guess).

There's no option of that name in core, but regardless what's wrong with core's self-test?

@claudioandre-br
Copy link
Member

claudioandre-br commented May 21, 2019

There's no option of that name in core, but regardless what's wrong with core's self-test?

I'm using the "coming from core" terminology seen at: #3776 (comment) Also, see #948

What hardware do we need and why?

We have no Windows users here (GitHub) telling us how JtR is behaving. No developers using BE hardware. No more developers trying GPUs and drivers. Or, what about 32bits Windows OpenCL.

@solardiz
Copy link
Member

#948 is definitely not 1.9.0-jumbo-2 material unless we happen not to make that release for a very long time, in which case it'd probably need to have a different number anyway. I've just changed the target milestone on that issue.

I think the lack of testing by actual users (or developers) is very different from a lack of hardware.

@solardiz
Copy link
Member

solardiz commented May 25, 2019

I've just moved many issues out of the 1.9.0-jumbo-2 milestone, but many of the remaining ones give me a "probably not now" feeling as well. We probably need separate milestones for "definitely 1.9.0-jumbo-2 material" vs. "potentially 1.9.0-jumbo-2 material".

@magnumripper
Copy link
Member Author

Note to self: Update doc/NEWS often.

@magnumripper
Copy link
Member Author

I'm currently working on #3249, #3697 and #4034. They sort of stick together so it'll be a single PR with at least three separate commits.

@magnumripper
Copy link
Member Author

I think I did all the above. Not sure what's on the Jumbo-2 prio but I will now re-visit #3498 just because I really really want to. It will definitely take a while before you see anything at all from me again (at least in that context) but when that happens, things might move quickly.

@magnumripper
Copy link
Member Author

Oh and @solardiz if you could just say anything about #3497, especially if I'm not on track at all, it could save quite some work.

@solardiz
Copy link
Member

Discussion restarted in new context in #4564. Closing this one.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants