Has there been any progress towards implementing this? A status report - even if "too busy, sorry" - would be appreciated.
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Juiceman <juiceman69 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 3:11 PM, David ?Bombe? Roden < > bombe at pterodactylus.net> wrote: > >> ** >> >> Hi Matthew, >> >> > Also we could have many "streams" of test builds, by different >> developers, >> >> > and thus let them release whatever they want to without it being >> >> > officially endorsed, but the users still be able to use the update.sh >> >> > <name> / update.cmd <name> conveniently. >> >> That would require quite some trickery in the update scripts, especially >> in the Windows version of it, I guess. >> > > Not really. Just need to make the download path a variable that is set at > the beginning of the script. I could do the Windows script in less than an > hour once decided how the files are named and where they are kept. > > >> > True. Eventually we need real builds. Right now me, Ian and Nextgens >> could >> >> > do a release (in some cases with significant effort). It may be that >> >> > others should be added to that list. >> >> Uhm? yes. One person on that list doesn?t have the time to do it anymore, >> and the other two persons are? who are they, anyway? Ian has even less time >> than you do, and he?s been completely detached from Freenet development for >> years now; Nextgens at least sometimes drops by and tells us our crypto >> sucks. :) >> >> > It's all automated, but it's a question of what level of automation is >> >> > sufficiently secure. A build MUST be SIGNED by a specific developer, and >> >> > his signing keys must be encrypted. So I don't think release-on-commit >> is >> >> > a good idea. However there is a set of scripts that allows a developer >> to >> >> > release a build reasonably easily - provided he has the secret keys and >> >> > SSH access to freenetproject.org. >> >> I didn?t necessarily mean non-interactive server-side automation. >> Building and signing could happen locally but script-supported. >> >> > Big features should of course be on feature branches. Beyond that, it >> makes >> >> > sense to have people who can build test-builds who can't actually do a >> >> > release, and they should have their own repositories. >> >> The way I see it test builds are releases as well; they just have to be >> requested manually from those users that like to live on the bleeding edge. >> Other than that I don?t see any distinction, especially not on their >> ?officialness.? >> >> Greetings, >> >> David >> >> -- >> >> David ?Bombe? Roden <bombe at pterodactylus.net> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Devl mailing list >> Devl at freenetproject.org >> http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl >> > > > > -- > I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the > death, your right to say it. - Voltaire > Those who would give up Liberty, to purchase temporary Safety, deserve > neither Liberty nor Safety. - Ben Franklin > > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > Devl at freenetproject.org > http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20111204/1a6b5554/attachment.html>
