> On 20 Mar 2024, at 15:28, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
>> On 29 Feb 2024, at 20:58, Jacob Champion
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 2:54 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> I rank that as one of my better typos actually. Fixed though.
>>
>> LGTM!
>
> Thanks for review, and since Heikki m
> On 29 Feb 2024, at 20:58, Jacob Champion
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 2:54 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> I rank that as one of my better typos actually. Fixed though.
>
> LGTM!
Thanks for review, and since Heikki marked it ready for committer I assume that
counting as a +1 as well.
On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 2:54 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> I rank that as one of my better typos actually. Fixed though.
LGTM!
Thanks,
--Jacob
> On 26 Feb 2024, at 19:56, Jacob Champion
> wrote:
>> + * SASL_FAILED: The exchance has failed and the connection should be
>
> s/exchance/exchange/
I rank that as one of my better typos actually. Fixed though.
>> - if (final && !done)
>> + if (final && !(status == SASL_FAILED || status == S
On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 2:30 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> The attached two patches are smaller refactorings to the SASL exchange and
> init
> codepaths which are required for the OAuthbearer work [0]. Regardless of the
> future of that patchset, these refactorings are nice cleanups and can be
The attached two patches are smaller refactorings to the SASL exchange and init
codepaths which are required for the OAuthbearer work [0]. Regardless of the
future of that patchset, these refactorings are nice cleanups and can be
considered in isolation. Another goal is of course to reduce scope
