Re: [freenet-dev] git/hg hosting
Am Dienstag 07 April 2009 10:28:30 schrieb Daniel Cheng: > >> > > git tag -s -m > > Can you also sign a revision without tagging it? > > No. > In DVCS model, signing single revision does not make sense > -- since you will merge / rebase that revision as soon as it is merged. I think it does make sense as long as you don't rewrite history. Every signed revision is a certified step on the way, but the signature is only relevant to automatic verification tools, not to users - except where a tag gets signed and the users want to be sure by whom the tag was created. Signed tags for each verified revision create quite much unnecessary noise. But since the decision is now set, that freenet will switch to git and lose history (ouch!), someone else will have to write the verification framework. Doing it in Mercurial is quite simple (I sketched one in my analog notebook while in on sunday), but I know far too little about git to try to do something similar there. Best wishes, Arne -- -- Ein Würfel System: http://1w6.org - einfach saubere (Rollenspiel-) Regeln. -- Infinite Hands: http://infinite-hands.draketo.de - singing a part of the history of free software. -- My stuff: http://draketo.de - stories, songs, poems, programs and stuff :) -- PGP/GnuPG: http://draketo.de/inhalt/ich/pubkey.txt signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] git/hg hosting
On Tuesday 07 April 2009 09:24:10 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Samstag 04 April 2009 22:50:11 schrieb Matthew Toseland: > > Agreed, however we need to be careful as we can be sued for any > code which is copyrighted by somebody else; if we can provide the > would-be litigant with the identity of the committer, we don't have > this problem. > > Sure. > > That's why someone needs to maintain a frenet-only pseudonymous > version of the repository where all pseudonymous contributions can > be gathered. :) :) > > That pseudonymous version can then contain additional features, so > users have a rason for switching to it. > > We just need to find a way to make sure that this pseudonymous > repository doesn't get compromised. Well, that disqualifies me - I'm traceable. > > > I think it would be nice to do this as repository which can be updated > only if at least 60% of a specific group of people agree. Why is that beneficial relative to a fully distributed model of people pulling if they like a patch? > > Ideally with also the option of adding new people to the group if > enough people agree? > > Example: Assume that we have 5 trusted maintainers. If one of them > now wants to push some changes to the reference repository, at > least two others have to agree to get the new revision into freenet. > > If another maintainer joins the group, they need 4 people for pushing > code online, and if two leave the group, two people suffice. (joining > and leaving would need to be done as greoup decision - needs 3 of 5 > for example). Such a mechanism will be necessary for trusted freesites in general - the reason we don't have an official freesite is what happens when the private key is compromised? The most basic scheme is to have a single revocation key, which if found indicates the key has been compromised, which can be inserted by trusted people. But it would be much better if each trusted person could have his own revocation key, and they could vote on adding new trusted people / kicking them out, and on recovery from a compromise of the main key. > > It would be possible to implement this check decentrally: Each head > must be signed by a majority of the keys which are saved in freenet > to be accepted locally, else the foreign repository will be marked as > compromised. > > If the list of trusted keys is part of the repository, it will be possible to > update them. > > Ideally there should also be a mechanism for backup locations and > changing them. For example this could be done by having a list of > them in the repository. When the main repository gets > compromised, freenet should check the backups for updates. > > Adding in a few safety checks (always need backup locations and a > minimum number of maintainers), this looks to me like it should > work. > > Are there any weeknesses in this scheme (except the possibility that > the majority of maintainers overlooks some bad code)? Dunno... > > Best wishes, > Arne signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] git/hg hosting
On Wednesday 08 April 2009 16:22:03 guido wrote: > > Your pgp signature is charset corrupted. > The pgp signature is pure ASCII, how can it possibly be charset corrupted? Because there are encodings out there that don’t care about the lowest 7 bit being ASCII. Admittedly, they are far and in-between. David signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] git/hg hosting
Am Freitag, 3. April 2009 02:30:09 schrieb Daniel Cheng: > > NextGen$ > > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > > [..] > > > G3IAoIo⎿伜堏鍙䶞㢈榷㑴 > > Your pgp signature is charset corrupted. The pgp signature is pure ASCII, how can it possibly be charset corrupted? Looks fine to me, btw. -- | _ | ASCII Ribbon Campaign Against HTML Emails. | ( ) | | X | | / \ | ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] git/hg hosting
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Samstag 04 April 2009 03:29:57 schrieb David ‘Bombe’ Roden: >> On Friday 03 April 2009 18:29:04 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: >> > > > $ hg sign [REVISION] >> > > >> > > git tag -s -m >> > >> > Is that a GnuPG signed tag? >> >> Yes. Check [1] for an example. > > Thanks! > > (also to Daniel Cheng who answered first :) ) > > Can you also sign a revision without tagging it? No. In DVCS model, signing single revision does not make sense -- since you will merge / rebase that revision as soon as it is merged. When you rebase a revision, the signature is voided. > > Best wishes, > Arne ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] git/hg hosting
Am Samstag 04 April 2009 22:50:11 schrieb Matthew Toseland: > Agreed, however we need to be careful as we can be sued for any code which is copyrighted by somebody else; if we can provide the would-be litigant with the identity of the committer, we don't have this problem. Sure. That's why someone needs to maintain a frenet-only pseudonymous version of the repository where all pseudonymous contributions can be gathered. :) That pseudonymous version can then contain additional features, so users have a rason for switching to it. We just need to find a way to make sure that this pseudonymous repository doesn't get compromised. I think it would be nice to do this as repository which can be updated only if at least 60% of a specific group of people agree. Ideally with also the option of adding new people to the group if enough people agree? Example: Assume that we have 5 trusted maintainers. If one of them now wants to push some changes to the reference repository, at least two others have to agree to get the new revision into freenet. If another maintainer joins the group, they need 4 people for pushing code online, and if two leave the group, two people suffice. (joining and leaving would need to be done as greoup decision - needs 3 of 5 for example). It would be possible to implement this check decentrally: Each head must be signed by a majority of the keys which are saved in freenet to be accepted locally, else the foreign repository will be marked as compromised. If the list of trusted keys is part of the repository, it will be possible to update them. Ideally there should also be a mechanism for backup locations and changing them. For example this could be done by having a list of them in the repository. When the main repository gets compromised, freenet should check the backups for updates. Adding in a few safety checks (always need backup locations and a minimum number of maintainers), this looks to me like it should work. Are there any weeknesses in this scheme (except the possibility that the majority of maintainers overlooks some bad code)? Best wishes, Arne -- -- Ein Würfel System: http://1w6.org - einfach saubere (Rollenspiel-) Regeln. -- Infinite Hands: http://infinite-hands.draketo.de - singing a part of the history of free software. -- My stuff: http://draketo.de - stories, songs, poems, programs and stuff :) -- PGP/GnuPG: http://draketo.de/inhalt/ich/pubkey.txt ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] git/hg hosting
Am Samstag 04 April 2009 03:29:57 schrieb David ‘Bombe’ Roden: > On Friday 03 April 2009 18:29:04 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > > > > $ hg sign [REVISION] > > > > > > git tag -s -m > > > > Is that a GnuPG signed tag? > > Yes. Check [1] for an example. Thanks! (also to Daniel Cheng who answered first :) ) Can you also sign a revision without tagging it? Best wishes, Arne -- -- Ein Würfel System: http://1w6.org - einfach saubere (Rollenspiel-) Regeln. -- Infinite Hands: http://infinite-hands.draketo.de - singing a part of the history of free software. -- My stuff: http://draketo.de - stories, songs, poems, programs and stuff :) -- PGP/GnuPG: http://draketo.de/inhalt/ich/pubkey.txt ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] git/hg hosting
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Sunday 05 April 2009 15:55:38 Daniel Cheng wrote: >> Building untrusted binaries is not really impossible -- >> I have known some people running public build service with sandbox >> for long. But these kind of service have high maintenance cost ... > > Well, no sandbox is perfect, and right now unit test changes are not so > common... Steve Hazel, former freenetter (way back around 2000-2001), built this: http://codepad.org/. It lets you run code in a variety of languages in a robust sandbox. He doesn't support Java because the JVM insists on starting other threads, but he may have some advice for us about how to reasonably sandbox a javac process. If anyone is interested, I'm sure he'd be responsive to an email - his addr is s...@codepad.org Ian. -- Ian Clarke CEO, Uprizer Labs Email: i...@uprizer.com Ph: +1 512 422 3588 Fax: +1 512 276 6674 ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] git/hg hosting
On Sunday 05 April 2009 15:55:38 Daniel Cheng wrote: > On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 5:03 AM, Matthew Toseland > wrote: > > On Thursday 02 April 2009 19:09:14 Ian Clarke wrote: > >> Whichever source control system we switch to, I propose that we outsource > >> the repository hosting. For example, if its git, we should use github. > >> > >> Reasons: > >> > >> - At least in the case of github, it will be free > >> - We don't have to worry about setting up and administering the repository > >> - Services like github have a lot of other useful add-ons like a nice web > >> interface to the repository > >> - Because of how git works, we can trivially migrate the repository > >> elsewhere if there is a problem > >> > >> Anyone disagree? If so, why? > > > > IMHO hosting git (or hg) externally makes sense, for the reasons given and for > > other reasons. Caveats relate to binaries/workflow: > > > > Stable builds: A trusted developer should review changes (from the repository > > and not from the cvs list), create a tag and sign it, and then, on his own > > computer, build the binaries and source tarballs for that build, and upload > > them to our web hosting and to Freenet. > > > > Testing builds: We may or may not continue to provide testing builds. If we do > > they should be an unofficial service, auto-built but should automatically > > shut down if critical files (e.g. build.xml) are modified. > > What if the junit are modified? junit are run on the sever as well Good point. :( > > Building untrusted binaries is not really impossible -- > I have known some people running public build service with sandbox > for long. But these kind of service have high maintenance cost ... Well, no sandbox is perfect, and right now unit test changes are not so common... > > > The above is close to what we do now, but Done Right. In the long term we may > > end up with a more distributed workflow, but it depends on what people want, > > how it works out in practice; if I get a pseudonymous user asking me to pull > > his in-Freenet repo (branch), I would certainly have a look! > >> > >> Ian. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] git/hg hosting
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 5:03 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Thursday 02 April 2009 19:09:14 Ian Clarke wrote: >> Whichever source control system we switch to, I propose that we outsource >> the repository hosting. For example, if its git, we should use github. >> >> Reasons: >> >> - At least in the case of github, it will be free >> - We don't have to worry about setting up and administering the repository >> - Services like github have a lot of other useful add-ons like a nice web >> interface to the repository >> - Because of how git works, we can trivially migrate the repository >> elsewhere if there is a problem >> >> Anyone disagree? If so, why? > > IMHO hosting git (or hg) externally makes sense, for the reasons given and for > other reasons. Caveats relate to binaries/workflow: > > Stable builds: A trusted developer should review changes (from the repository > and not from the cvs list), create a tag and sign it, and then, on his own > computer, build the binaries and source tarballs for that build, and upload > them to our web hosting and to Freenet. > > Testing builds: We may or may not continue to provide testing builds. If we do > they should be an unofficial service, auto-built but should automatically > shut down if critical files (e.g. build.xml) are modified. What if the junit are modified? junit are run on the sever as well Building untrusted binaries is not really impossible -- I have known some people running public build service with sandbox for long. But these kind of service have high maintenance cost ... > The above is close to what we do now, but Done Right. In the long term we may > end up with a more distributed workflow, but it depends on what people want, > how it works out in practice; if I get a pseudonymous user asking me to pull > his in-Freenet repo (branch), I would certainly have a look! >> >> Ian. > ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] git/hg hosting
On Thursday 02 April 2009 19:09:14 Ian Clarke wrote: > Whichever source control system we switch to, I propose that we outsource > the repository hosting. For example, if its git, we should use github. > > Reasons: > > - At least in the case of github, it will be free > - We don't have to worry about setting up and administering the repository > - Services like github have a lot of other useful add-ons like a nice web > interface to the repository > - Because of how git works, we can trivially migrate the repository > elsewhere if there is a problem > > Anyone disagree? If so, why? IMHO hosting git (or hg) externally makes sense, for the reasons given and for other reasons. Caveats relate to binaries/workflow: Stable builds: A trusted developer should review changes (from the repository and not from the cvs list), create a tag and sign it, and then, on his own computer, build the binaries and source tarballs for that build, and upload them to our web hosting and to Freenet. Testing builds: We may or may not continue to provide testing builds. If we do they should be an unofficial service, auto-built but should automatically shut down if critical files (e.g. build.xml) are modified. The above is close to what we do now, but Done Right. In the long term we may end up with a more distributed workflow, but it depends on what people want, how it works out in practice; if I get a pseudonymous user asking me to pull his in-Freenet repo (branch), I would certainly have a look! > > Ian. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] git/hg hosting
On Friday 03 April 2009 15:50:28 Ian Clarke wrote: > On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Florent Daignière < > nextg...@freenetproject.org> wrote: > > > Okay, so it's technically possible (anyway, pulling on a regular basis > > was also an option)... but do we want to fetch code from a remote host > > we don't control and auto-run it on emu? The building process involves > > running the build-scripts. > > Well, we don't control emu either, its sitting in Bytemark's datacenter. > I'd say that github are at least as trustworthy as Bytemark. You miss the point. The auto-build runs on emu, so having compromised emu you can compromise emu! No net gain for any attacker. > I assume > scripts will be run in a walled-off user account, and we can take measures > to sandbox it - but it isn't like we are running the scripts after > downloading them from wikipedia. It is a legitimate concern, if it is misconfigured by either us or them. The right solution is for a trusted dev to code review, create a tag and sign it, and then release binaries from that tag. They can be built on his local machine, eliminating another reason for a central server hosted by us. > > Ian. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] git/hg hosting
On Friday 03 April 2009 09:31:06 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Freitag 03 April 2009 02:22:05 schrieb Daniel Cheng: > > DVCS does _NOT_ means accepting anonymous contribution. > > > > However, if we want to, there is nothing stopping us. > > Personally I think it important for freenet to slowly establish a workflow > where people contribute pseudonymously, because that will build a group of > trusted committers which will be essential should freenet ever be outlawed. > > Also that will open the way to a seamless transition to completely freenet- > based development. > > For that workflow freenet needs to use a DVCS. Agreed, however we need to be careful as we can be sued for any code which is copyrighted by somebody else; if we can provide the would-be litigant with the identity of the committer, we don't have this problem. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] git/hg hosting
On Friday 03 April 2009 18:29:04 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > > > $ hg sign [REVISION] > > git tag -s -m > Is that a GnuPG signed tag? Yes. Check [1] for an example. David [1]: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-2.6.29.y.git;a=tag;h=5dfd736f95b3d84a18b5bb8e50ac71f245438acf signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] git/hg hosting
2009/4/4 Arne Babenhauserheide : > Am Freitag 03 April 2009 17:19:13 schrieb David ‘Bombe’ Roden: >> On Friday 03 April 2009 14:14:41 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: >> > $ hg sign [REVISION] >> >> git tag -s -m > > Is that a GnuPG signed tag? "-s" is "sign" > > Best wishes, > Arne ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] git/hg hosting
Am Freitag 03 April 2009 17:19:13 schrieb David ‘Bombe’ Roden: > On Friday 03 April 2009 14:14:41 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > > $ hg sign [REVISION] > > git tag -s -m Is that a GnuPG signed tag? Best wishes, Arne -- -- Ein Würfel System: http://1w6.org - einfach saubere (Rollenspiel-) Regeln. -- Infinite Hands: http://infinite-hands.draketo.de - singing a part of the history of free software. -- My stuff: http://draketo.de - stories, songs, poems, programs and stuff :) -- PGP/GnuPG: http://draketo.de/inhalt/ich/pubkey.txt signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] git/hg hosting
Daniel Cheng wrote: > Florent Daignière wrote: >> * Daniel Cheng [2009-04-03 08:30:09]: >> >>> 2009/4/3 Florent Daignière : * Ian Clarke [2009-04-02 17:44:37]: > On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 1:55 PM, NextGen$ > wrote: > >> Toad said on an other thread you wanted us to keep the same kind of >> "workflow" : all the devs are pushing to the same repository... How does >> what >> you have written above integrate in the picture? >> >> Now I am confused. >> >> Do we want to lose the auto-build process? The bts integration, and other >> related things? How do you want released to be rolled? >> > If we go with git and github they do support post-receive hooks: > > http://github.com/guides/post-receive-hooks > > I think the workflow can and should be very similar to what it is > currently, > with developers pushing to a single authoritative repository. > Okay, so it's technically possible (anyway, pulling on a regular basis was also an option)... but do we want to fetch code from a remote host we don't control and auto-run it on emu? The building process involves running the build-scripts. >>> Currently, the svn commit protected by password. >>> svn does not enforce signed https server cert, >>> mitm attempts can harm as much as that. >>> >> Huh? Svn shows you the server's certificate fingerprint the first time >> you use it... And we are using a valid SSL certificate signed by a 3rd >> party. > > You have never tell me the fingerprint, so it may have been hijacked > since day 1. No, that's why our certificates are signed by a 3rd party who's certificates ought to be known to you. > And the password was sent to me using plain text... > It shouldn't have been. If you sent me an encrypted email or your public key, I have used it. Anyway, you can securely change it using https://emu.freenetproject.org/admin/ >>> Require for PGP signed commits, if you want something stronger. >>> >> Sure we can do that... but how integrated are the PGP/GPG modules with >> git/hg? What about the GUI versions? > > hg allow "hg sign" to sign a commits. > git allow "git tag -s" to sign a tag. > > One have to hack the pre-commit hook if we want > to sign every commits. > > The reasoning here is: every commit id is a hash. > Once you sign a revision, you are quite sure it won't > be changed. > NextGen$ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- >>> [..] G3IAoIo??? >>> Your pgp signature is charset corrupted. >> Hmm? I am not using UTF8; It's an ISO charset you might not have... >> > > PGP signature in mail should be 7-bit ASCII, right? > No, I don't think so. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] git/hg hosting
Florent Daignière wrote: > * Daniel Cheng [2009-04-03 08:30:09]: > >> 2009/4/3 Florent Daignière : >>> * Ian Clarke [2009-04-02 17:44:37]: >>> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 1:55 PM, NextGen$ wrote: > Toad said on an other thread you wanted us to keep the same kind of > "workflow" : all the devs are pushing to the same repository... How does > what > you have written above integrate in the picture? > > Now I am confused. > > Do we want to lose the auto-build process? The bts integration, and other > related things? How do you want released to be rolled? > If we go with git and github they do support post-receive hooks: http://github.com/guides/post-receive-hooks I think the workflow can and should be very similar to what it is currently, with developers pushing to a single authoritative repository. >>> Okay, so it's technically possible (anyway, pulling on a regular basis >>> was also an option)... but do we want to fetch code from a remote host >>> we don't control and auto-run it on emu? The building process involves >>> running the build-scripts. >> Currently, the svn commit protected by password. >> svn does not enforce signed https server cert, >> mitm attempts can harm as much as that. >> > > Huh? Svn shows you the server's certificate fingerprint the first time > you use it... And we are using a valid SSL certificate signed by a 3rd > party. You have never tell me the fingerprint, so it may have been hijacked since day 1. And the password was sent to me using plain text... >> Require for PGP signed commits, if you want something stronger. >> > > Sure we can do that... but how integrated are the PGP/GPG modules with > git/hg? What about the GUI versions? hg allow "hg sign" to sign a commits. git allow "git tag -s" to sign a tag. One have to hack the pre-commit hook if we want to sign every commits. The reasoning here is: every commit id is a hash. Once you sign a revision, you are quite sure it won't be changed. >>> NextGen$ >>> >>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- >> [..] >>> G3IAoIo??? >> Your pgp signature is charset corrupted. > > Hmm? I am not using UTF8; It's an ISO charset you might not have... > PGP signature in mail should be 7-bit ASCII, right? ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] git/hg hosting
On Friday 03 April 2009 14:14:41 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > $ hg sign [REVISION] git tag -s -m Built-in. David signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] git/hg hosting
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Florent Daignière < nextg...@freenetproject.org> wrote: > Okay, so it's technically possible (anyway, pulling on a regular basis > was also an option)... but do we want to fetch code from a remote host > we don't control and auto-run it on emu? The building process involves > running the build-scripts. Well, we don't control emu either, its sitting in Bytemark's datacenter. I'd say that github are at least as trustworthy as Bytemark. I assume scripts will be run in a walled-off user account, and we can take measures to sandbox it - but it isn't like we are running the scripts after downloading them from wikipedia. Ian. -- Ian Clarke CEO, Uprizer Labs Email: i...@uprizer.com Ph: +1 512 422 3588 Fax: +1 512 276 6674 ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] git/hg hosting
Am Freitag 03 April 2009 12:18:11 schrieb Florent Daignière: > Sure we can do that... but how integrated are the PGP/GPG modules with > git/hg? What about the GUI versions? At least for hg you can just activate the gpg extension (distributed with hg) and can then sign changesets with $ hg sign [REVISION] I didn't yet try to use TortoiseHG for signing. ctivate the extension by adding the following in .hg/hgrc (for one single repository) or ~/.hgrc (for the user) [extensions] hgext.gpg = At least for Mercurial, more efficient than enforcing signatures for all commits would be to only allow a push, if all heads are signed or are signature commits coming after a signed commit, because that means that someone checked all new commits leading to the heads. Since Mercurial history is considered as mostly immutable (you need to activate history changing extensions to modify it, and you can't delete changes in others repositories - though you can revert them), this means that each set of changes will be checked before it gets into the main repo. This would also allow a workflow, where someone acts as gatekeeper and pulls contributions from others, which he/she then verifies, signs and pushes to the main repo. The contributions from others can for example be in anonymous repositories on freenet or can be sent by (free-)mail as patches. Best wishes, Arne -- -- Ein Würfel System: http://1w6.org - einfach saubere (Rollenspiel-) Regeln. -- Infinite Hands: http://infinite-hands.draketo.de - singing a part of the history of free software. -- My stuff: http://draketo.de - stories, songs, poems, programs and stuff :) -- PGP/GnuPG: http://draketo.de/inhalt/ich/pubkey.txt signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] git/hg hosting
* Daniel Cheng [2009-04-03 08:30:09]: > 2009/4/3 Florent Daignière : > > * Ian Clarke [2009-04-02 17:44:37]: > > > >> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 1:55 PM, NextGen$ > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Toad said on an other thread you wanted us to keep the same kind of > >> > "workflow" : all the devs are pushing to the same repository... How does > >> > what > >> > you have written above integrate in the picture? > >> > > >> > Now I am confused. > >> > > >> > Do we want to lose the auto-build process? The bts integration, and other > >> > related things? How do you want released to be rolled? > >> > > >> > >> If we go with git and github they do support post-receive hooks: > >> > >> http://github.com/guides/post-receive-hooks > >> > >> I think the workflow can and should be very similar to what it is > >> currently, > >> with developers pushing to a single authoritative repository. > >> > > > > Okay, so it's technically possible (anyway, pulling on a regular basis > > was also an option)... but do we want to fetch code from a remote host > > we don't control and auto-run it on emu? The building process involves > > running the build-scripts. > > Currently, the svn commit protected by password. > svn does not enforce signed https server cert, > mitm attempts can harm as much as that. > Huh? Svn shows you the server's certificate fingerprint the first time you use it... And we are using a valid SSL certificate signed by a 3rd party. > Require for PGP signed commits, if you want something stronger. > Sure we can do that... but how integrated are the PGP/GPG modules with git/hg? What about the GUI versions? > > NextGen$ > > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > [..] > > G3IAoIo??? > > Your pgp signature is charset corrupted. Hmm? I am not using UTF8; It's an ISO charset you might not have... signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] git/hg hosting
Am Freitag 03 April 2009 02:22:05 schrieb Daniel Cheng: > DVCS does _NOT_ means accepting anonymous contribution. > > However, if we want to, there is nothing stopping us. Personally I think it important for freenet to slowly establish a workflow where people contribute pseudonymously, because that will build a group of trusted committers which will be essential should freenet ever be outlawed. Also that will open the way to a seamless transition to completely freenet- based development. For that workflow freenet needs to use a DVCS. > This is no different from what we have been doing. > Lots of translation come from anonymous. > And I have been committing under the name "Daniel Cheng", > but nobody have ever verified my id. But you can bet tracked down (you're posting in this ML...). I don't know what a copyright lawyer will say to completely anonymous contributions, so the VCS of Freenet should allow for pseudonymous management of the anonymous contributions. > > PS: For strengths and weaknesses of hg and git (and bzr), you can have a > > look at the excellent DVCS PEP of Python. They analysed which DVCS would > > be suited best for their different usecases: > > - http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0374/ > > Hg is written in python. > I have no question they can script Hg like me scripting Git.. > This is an extra advantage for them, but not us. > [...] Naturally hg being Python based is an extra advantage for Python - that's why I said "look at it", and not "follow their decision without thinking". They created a nice resource for projects switching from SVN. Every DVCSs part was written by a supporter of that DVCS. Logically the text has a bias towards Python, but since it's a Python PEP noone can claim he didn't know about that bias :) git in turn is written in C, bash and perl, which makes it harder to use for Windows users. What kind of scripts do you use? I ask, because as long as you don't do low-level index manipulation or similar plumbing stuff, you should be able to do the same with Mercurial - without using Python. Hooks for example are just shell commands defined in the repositories hgrc file (and can also call any kind of script). I use outgoing hooks to simply call lftp for uploading changed files when I do simple web development. Similarly the Mercurial shell interface (and its templating options) allow to easily use shell scripts for more highlevel tasks. Besides: I'll try to keep my posts focussed, because I already had one long git vs. hg discussion, and I assume you had yours, too - one initiation into the deep guts of DVCSs suffices :) Also I'm new to this list. Best wishes, Arne -- -- Ein Würfel System: http://1w6.org - einfach saubere (Rollenspiel-) Regeln. -- Infinite Hands: http://infinite-hands.draketo.de - singing a part of the history of free software. -- My stuff: http://draketo.de - stories, songs, poems, programs and stuff :) -- PGP/GnuPG: http://draketo.de/inhalt/ich/pubkey.txt signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] git/hg hosting
2009/4/3 Florent Daignière : > * Ian Clarke [2009-04-02 17:44:37]: > >> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 1:55 PM, NextGen$ wrote: >> >> > Toad said on an other thread you wanted us to keep the same kind of >> > "workflow" : all the devs are pushing to the same repository... How does >> > what >> > you have written above integrate in the picture? >> > >> > Now I am confused. >> > >> > Do we want to lose the auto-build process? The bts integration, and other >> > related things? How do you want released to be rolled? >> > >> >> If we go with git and github they do support post-receive hooks: >> >> http://github.com/guides/post-receive-hooks >> >> I think the workflow can and should be very similar to what it is currently, >> with developers pushing to a single authoritative repository. >> > > Okay, so it's technically possible (anyway, pulling on a regular basis > was also an option)... but do we want to fetch code from a remote host > we don't control and auto-run it on emu? The building process involves > running the build-scripts. Currently, the svn commit protected by password. svn does not enforce signed https server cert, mitm attempts can harm as much as that. Require for PGP signed commits, if you want something stronger. > NextGen$ > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- [..] > G3IAoIo⎿伜堏鍙䶞㢈榷㑴 Your pgp signature is charset corrupted. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] git/hg hosting
2009/4/3 Arne Babenhauserheide : > Am Freitag 03 April 2009 00:44:37 schrieb Ian Clarke: >> If we go with git and github they do support post-receive hooks: >> >> http://github.com/guides/post-receive-hooks >> >> I think the workflow can and should be very similar to what it is >> currently, with developers pushing to a single authoritative repository. > > The same is true for hg and bitbucket.org (though the corresponding Mercurial > hook is "incoming"). > > But both also offer far more possibilities. > > > For example the question arises how to deal with pseudonymous contributions. > > If you take a psudonymous patch, how to take care of the copyright? DVCS does _NOT_ means accepting anonymous contribution. However, if we want to, there is nothing stopping us. This is no different from what we have been doing. Lots of translation come from anonymous. And I have been committing under the name "Daniel Cheng", but nobody have ever verified my id. [...] > PS: For strengths and weaknesses of hg and git (and bzr), you can have a look > at the excellent DVCS PEP of Python. They analysed which DVCS would be suited > best for their different usecases: > - http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0374/ Hg is written in python. I have no question they can script Hg like me scripting Git.. This is an extra advantage for them, but not us. [...] ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] git/hg hosting
Am Freitag 03 April 2009 00:44:37 schrieb Ian Clarke: > If we go with git and github they do support post-receive hooks: > > http://github.com/guides/post-receive-hooks > > I think the workflow can and should be very similar to what it is > currently, with developers pushing to a single authoritative repository. The same is true for hg and bitbucket.org (though the corresponding Mercurial hook is "incoming"). But both also offer far more possibilities. For example the question arises how to deal with pseudonymous contributions. If you take a psudonymous patch, how to take care of the copyright? Does freenet then need an anonymous repository where someone assembles an anonymous version which includes the patches of dubious legality? And who will trust that version? I can't help much with git (I gave up on it after it bit me once too often), but if you have questions about hg, I should be able to answer them - or at least find someone who is :) Besides: Hi, I'm ArneBab from IRC, freenet user for more than 5 years, almost 24/7 since I switched to GNU/Linux, and avid Mercurial user for a year, now :) PS: For strengths and weaknesses of hg and git (and bzr), you can have a look at the excellent DVCS PEP of Python. They analysed which DVCS would be suited best for their different usecases: - http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0374/ PPS: If I write anything which was already discussed, please nudge me. I only skimmed part of the archives. -- -- Ein Würfel System: http://1w6.org - einfach saubere (Rollenspiel-) Regeln. -- Infinite Hands: http://infinite-hands.draketo.de - singing a part of the history of free software. -- My stuff: http://draketo.de - stories, songs, poems, programs and stuff :) -- PGP/GnuPG: http://draketo.de/inhalt/ich/pubkey.txt signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] git/hg hosting
* Ian Clarke [2009-04-02 17:44:37]: > On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 1:55 PM, NextGen$ wrote: > > > Toad said on an other thread you wanted us to keep the same kind of > > "workflow" : all the devs are pushing to the same repository... How does > > what > > you have written above integrate in the picture? > > > > Now I am confused. > > > > Do we want to lose the auto-build process? The bts integration, and other > > related things? How do you want released to be rolled? > > > > If we go with git and github they do support post-receive hooks: > > http://github.com/guides/post-receive-hooks > > I think the workflow can and should be very similar to what it is currently, > with developers pushing to a single authoritative repository. > Okay, so it's technically possible (anyway, pulling on a regular basis was also an option)... but do we want to fetch code from a remote host we don't control and auto-run it on emu? The building process involves running the build-scripts. NextGen$ signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] git/hg hosting
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 1:55 PM, NextGen$ wrote: > Toad said on an other thread you wanted us to keep the same kind of > "workflow" : all the devs are pushing to the same repository... How does > what > you have written above integrate in the picture? > > Now I am confused. > > Do we want to lose the auto-build process? The bts integration, and other > related things? How do you want released to be rolled? > If we go with git and github they do support post-receive hooks: http://github.com/guides/post-receive-hooks I think the workflow can and should be very similar to what it is currently, with developers pushing to a single authoritative repository. Ian. -- Ian Clarke CEO, Uprizer Labs Email: i...@uprizer.com Ph: +1 512 422 3588 Fax: +1 512 276 6674 ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] git/hg hosting
* Ian Clarke [2009-04-02 13:09:14]: > Whichever source control system we switch to, I propose that we outsource > the repository hosting. For example, if its git, we should use github. > > Reasons: > > - At least in the case of github, it will be free > - We don't have to worry about setting up and administering the repository > - Services like github have a lot of other useful add-ons like a nice web > interface to the repository > - Because of how git works, we can trivially migrate the repository > elsewhere if there is a problem > > Anyone disagree? If so, why? > Toad said on an other thread you wanted us to keep the same kind of "workflow" : all the devs are pushing to the same repository... How does what you have written above integrate in the picture? Now I am confused. Do we want to lose the auto-build process? The bts integration, and other related things? How do you want released to be rolled? NextGen$ ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl