Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

2014-08-29 Thread Odinn Cyberguerrilla
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> It would be nice if the issues and git repo for Bitcoin Core were not >> on such a centralized service as github, nice and convenient as it is. > > Despite my complaining about github, I don't like the idea of moving > somewhere else. The cu

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

2014-08-23 Thread Peter Todd
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 12:44:14PM -0500, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: What I would really like is a frontend and/or integration to Git/Mercurial that > uses Bitcoin transactions *as* the signature, which has the nice side effect > of > providing timestamps backed by the full faith and credit of a bil

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

2014-08-23 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Paul Rabahy wrote: > I want go give a bit of an outsiders perspective. I thoroughly understand > the concepts of bitcoin and am a professional programmer, but have never > taken the time to compile my own copy of bitcoin core. > > I have looked at the pull requests

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

2014-08-23 Thread Paul Rabahy
I want go give a bit of an outsiders perspective. I thoroughly understand the concepts of bitcoin and am a professional programmer, but have never taken the time to compile my own copy of bitcoin core. I have looked at the pull requests on Github many times. I have cloned the repo to my own comput

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

2014-08-23 Thread Troy Benjegerdes
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 10:32:15AM -0400, Peter Todd wrote: > On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 01:17:01AM -0500, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: > > This is why I clone git to mercurial, which is generally designed around the > > assumption that history is immutable. You can't rewrite blockchain history, > > and we

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

2014-08-23 Thread Wladimir
>On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Pieter Wuille >>wrote: > > Note that we're generally aiming (though not yet enforcing) to have > merges done through the github-merge tool, which performs the merge > locally, shows the resulting diff, compares it with the merge done by > github, and GnuPG signs

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

2014-08-23 Thread Peter Todd
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 01:17:01AM -0500, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: > This is why I clone git to mercurial, which is generally designed around the > assumption that history is immutable. You can't rewrite blockchain history, > and we should not be re-writing (rebasing) commit history either. Git com

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

2014-08-23 Thread Drak
On 23 August 2014 12:38, Pieter Wuille wrote: > That allows using github as easy-access mechanism for people to > contribute and inspect, while having a higher security standard for > the actual changes done to master. I'd also like to point out the obvious: git uses the previous hash as part o

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

2014-08-23 Thread Angel Leon
I think this is the only project where people are concerened wether commit messages are signed or not. Commit messages should be merged only upon their correctness, not their signature. I could care less if I receive a buggy patch that's signed. http://twitter.com/gubatron On Sat, Aug 23, 2014

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

2014-08-23 Thread Pieter Wuille
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 09:20:11PM +0200, xor wrote: >> On Tuesday, August 19, 2014 08:02:37 AM Jeff Garzik wrote: >> > It would be nice if the issues and git repo for Bitcoin Core were not >> > on such a centralized service as github, nic

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

2014-08-23 Thread Troy Benjegerdes
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 09:20:11PM +0200, xor wrote: > On Tuesday, August 19, 2014 08:02:37 AM Jeff Garzik wrote: > > It would be nice if the issues and git repo for Bitcoin Core were not > > on such a centralized service as github, nice and convenient as it is. > > Assuming there is a problem wit

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

2014-08-23 Thread Troy Benjegerdes
Gerrit is free if you can afford the admin(s) to maintain it. http://code.google.com/p/gerrit/wiki/ShowCases And yes, I'm volunteering to get paid to be the admin, especially if you want a 'painless' log in with a github account feature, because it will be very painful for me to unroll the damage

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

2014-08-23 Thread Troy Benjegerdes
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 08:24:33AM +0200, Wladimir wrote: > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 3:26 AM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: > > > If bitcoin wants to become irrelevant, then by all means, continue to > > depend on github and all the unknown attack surface it exposes. > > > > Those of us that do run our

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

2014-08-22 Thread Angel Leon
+1000. Don't fix it if it ain't broken. Don't kill community support. I for instance wouldn't have contributed or forked if the project hadn't been on github. "Bitcoin has currently 4132 forks on Github. This means that you can get contributions by pull requests from 4132 developers. That is a HUG

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

2014-08-22 Thread xor
On Tuesday, August 19, 2014 08:02:37 AM Jeff Garzik wrote: > It would be nice if the issues and git repo for Bitcoin Core were not > on such a centralized service as github, nice and convenient as it is. Assuming there is a problem with that usually is caused by using Git the wrong way or not kno

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

2014-08-20 Thread Mike Hearn
If github were to be abandoned for anything, it'd make sense to move code review and bug tracking elsewhere. GitHub does a reasonably good job of hosting git repositories. It kind of sucks at code review and the issue tracker is rudimentary at best. These days you can do "log in with my github acco

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

2014-08-19 Thread Wladimir
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 3:26 AM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: > If bitcoin wants to become irrelevant, then by all means, continue to > depend on github and all the unknown attack surface it exposes. > > Those of us that do run our own servers will migrate to higher quality > alternatives. So that me

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

2014-08-19 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: > If a project cannot be organized enough to run its own hosting/web presense/ > counterintelligence/security that starts with installing an OS and patching > kernels, then it is really not wise for me to trust my financial future to > softw

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

2014-08-19 Thread Troy Benjegerdes
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 04:58:48PM +0200, Wladimir wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > It would be nice if the issues and git repo for Bitcoin Core were not > > on such a centralized service as github, nice and convenient as it is. > > Despite my complaining about git

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

2014-08-19 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 5:02 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > It would be nice if the issues and git repo for Bitcoin Core were not > on such a centralized service as github, nice and convenient as it is. > > To that end, I note that Linux does its own git repo, and now requires > 2FA: > http://www.linux

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

2014-08-19 Thread Angel Leon
-1 http://twitter.com/gubatron On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 7:02 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > As a first step, one possibility is putting the primary repo on > > bitcoin.org somewhere, and simply mirroring that to github for each > > push. > >

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

2014-08-19 Thread Bryan Bishop
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 7:02 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > As a first step, one possibility is putting the primary repo on > bitcoin.org somewhere, and simply mirroring that to github for each > push. Smaller first step would be to mirror the git repository on bitcoin.org, which is necessary anyway be

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

2014-08-19 Thread Wladimir
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > It would be nice if the issues and git repo for Bitcoin Core were not > on such a centralized service as github, nice and convenient as it is. Despite my complaining about github, I don't like the idea of moving somewhere else. The current way

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

2014-08-19 Thread Dāvis Mosāns
There's actually a pretty good alternative - GitLab it's open source, self-hosted and provides similar features to GitHub 2014-08-19 15:02 GMT+03:00 Jeff Garzik : > It would be nice if the issues and git repo for Bitcoin Core were not > on such a centralized service a

[Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

2014-08-19 Thread Jeff Garzik
It would be nice if the issues and git repo for Bitcoin Core were not on such a centralized service as github, nice and convenient as it is. To that end, I note that Linux does its own git repo, and now requires 2FA: http://www.linux.com/news/featured-blogs/203-konstantin-ryabitsev/784544-linux-k