[fullstop]

It really wasn't, though.

    commit 74b138d2a6529f2c07729d7c77b1725a8e8b16f1
    Author: Jia Tan <[e-mail]>
    Date:   Sat Mar 9 10:18:29 2024 +0800
    
        Tests: Update two test files.
        
        The original files were generated with random local to my machine.
        To better reproduce these files in the future, a constant seed was used
    to recreate these files.



    diff --git a/tests/files/bad-3-corrupt_lzma2.xz b/tests/files/bad-3-corrupt_lzma2.xz
    index 926f95b0..f9ec69a2 100644
    Binary files a/tests/files/bad-3-corrupt_lzma2.xz and b/tests/files/bad-3-corrupt_lzma2.xz differ
    diff --git a/tests/files/good-large_compressed.lzma b/tests/files/good-large_compressed.lzma
    index 8450fea8..878991f3 100644
    Binary files a/tests/files/good-large_compressed.lzma and b/tests/files/good-large_compressed.lzma differ

Would you bat an eye at this? If it were from a trusted developer and the code was part of a test case?

If you looked at strings contained within the bad file, you might notice that this was not random:

    7zXZ
    ####Hello####
    7zXZ
    w,( 
    7zXZ
    ####World####

But, again, this was a test case.

[zzzeek]

> Would you bat an eye at this? If it were from a trusted developer and the code was part of a test case?

well lets all agree that now, if we see commits affecting / adding binary data with "this was generated locally with XYZ", that now we will bat an eye at it.

[fullstop]

Without a doubt!

[johnisgood]

Yeah, again, "committed in plain sight" it was, was it not? Batting an eye on it or not is another matter.

[fullstop]

If it's obfuscated or deceptive, as it was, it's really not plain sight.

[johnisgood]

Some of his commits were NOT obfuscated, committed in plain sight, yet no one has batted an eye, for reasons. So whatever floats your boat by adding that sentence, regardless, and however you may define "plain sight". It is a binary file to begin with.

[fullstop]

Can you point one out?