)]}'
{
  "commit": "62d6ed60dc192433d05fcc786a8dc0df23e80c96",
  "tree": "daafa2d68508aa18454c4113225a086f7cb86eac",
  "parents": [
    "2cf7a2cdea9af3a76b0b4cf6316e02cdfa8fe284"
  ],
  "author": {
    "name": "David Benjamin",
    "email": "davidben@google.com",
    "time": "Thu Jul 01 13:21:51 2021 -0400"
  },
  "committer": {
    "name": "Adam Langley",
    "email": "agl@google.com",
    "time": "Wed Jul 07 16:36:18 2021 +0000"
  },
  "message": "Remove -2 return value from X509*_get_*_by_NID.\n\nX509*_get_*_by_NID return -1 if the extension was not found, but -2 if\nthe NID was invalid. Looking through callers, many check index !\u003d -1,\nrather than index \u003c 0. That means, in theory, they\u0027ll do the wrong thing\nin some cases.\n\nRealistically, this case is impossible: most callers pass in a constant.\nEven in those that don\u0027t, NIDs are a local enum, not standard constants.\nThat means hitting this path is almost certainly a programmer error. No\nneed to complicate the calling convention for it.\n\nUpdate-Note: The return value convention of some functions was\nsimplified. This is not expected to affect any callers.\n\nChange-Id: If2f5a45c37caccdbfcc3296ff2db6db1183e3a95\nReviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/48368\nReviewed-by: Adam Langley \u003cagl@google.com\u003e\n",
  "tree_diff": [
    {
      "type": "modify",
      "old_id": "d3e78c35444ac4cb286a69adcb3e028ad64242a8",
      "old_mode": 33188,
      "old_path": "crypto/x509/x509_att.c",
      "new_id": "e2a5121a8072b248aa40ffa2ea695205919a016b",
      "new_mode": 33188,
      "new_path": "crypto/x509/x509_att.c"
    },
    {
      "type": "modify",
      "old_id": "d2a51c0704f07e60b844c704584475100a540a18",
      "old_mode": 33188,
      "old_path": "crypto/x509/x509_v3.c",
      "new_id": "00d63992f0f0e62a40c9116029c166815d04ac02",
      "new_mode": 33188,
      "new_path": "crypto/x509/x509_v3.c"
    }
  ]
}