)]}'
{
  "commit": "2c1c9fa5cbb123555f38947af3c3ad3f29132dda",
  "tree": "c71a24493b17fe29bbc9ee6621d2ff730fb739ff",
  "parents": [
    "1eae29777c4309eb3bca73702b84becaebb71dc5"
  ],
  "author": {
    "name": "David Benjamin",
    "email": "davidben@google.com",
    "time": "Mon Mar 15 18:18:34 2021 -0400"
  },
  "committer": {
    "name": "Adam Langley",
    "email": "agl@google.com",
    "time": "Tue Mar 16 16:58:31 2021 +0000"
  },
  "message": "Better document nullable X.509 getters.\n\nWhen it is and isn\u0027t safe to assume an X509 field is non-NULL seems to\ncause some confusion. (I often get requests to add NULL checks when\nrewriting calling code.)\n\nX.509 has surprisingly few optional fields, and we generally say\npointers are non-NULL unless documented. But that only works if we\nremember to mention the nullable ones.\n\nChange-Id: I18b57a17c9d57c377ea2227347e423f574389818\nReviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/46185\nReviewed-by: Adam Langley \u003cagl@google.com\u003e\n",
  "tree_diff": [
    {
      "type": "modify",
      "old_id": "24c589ba4d421f9d6f1cded6cbb08f6181fd77b3",
      "old_mode": 33188,
      "old_path": "include/openssl/x509.h",
      "new_id": "1550b2c7f48a03b151753583d3cccdde12f1a58e",
      "new_mode": 33188,
      "new_path": "include/openssl/x509.h"
    }
  ]
}