Provide a non-owning constructor for Issuer#362
Merged
Conversation
djc
reviewed
Jul 4, 2025
Member
|
(You might also be interested in #363.) |
djc
approved these changes
Jul 4, 2025
Contributor
Author
|
Gah! |
Member
We normally use the merge queue, which doesn't make this easy, but we can bypass that if squashing is too hard for you. |
Contributor
Author
|
Aaaand squashed :) |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hey
rcgenfolks!I must say I really like what you've done with the new API changes, but I'm really missing a way to sign certificates without giving the issuer ownership of the
KeyPair(especially frustrating since it's notClone).Maybe I missed an alternative (maybe there's a newtype around a reference that directly impls
SigningKey), but this seems like a straight forward enough change.Do keep in mind that if you accept this PR, you're probably locking yourself into having these
MaybeOwnedin the internal type representation (just thought I'd warn you :) ).Note: feel free to reject this PR if you don't want that extra surface, I'm gonna newtype
&KeyPairto get that copy-less use in my project :)