Anders Rundgren wrote:
> You didn't hear my presentation at FOSDEM 2012 but it was about
> creating a token with a standard API so that you would as a
> customer be able to just plug it in.
This is an advantage of USB P11. In Windows 8 and later there doesn't
even have to be a driver installed, si
On 2012-02-19 13:32, Jean-Michel Pouré - GOOZE wrote:
>> Anders Rundgren wrote:
>>> For non-government tokens like the excellent Feitian Epass2003
>>> I would consider another approach: Updating the firmware to
>>> emulate PIV so that we can put the middleware aside once and
>>> for all.
>> I agree
Peter Stuge wrote:
> > Please advise:
> > 1) How to push a patch from GITHUB to OpenSC staging directory.
> > In two or three sentences.
>
> I would do:
>
> One-time setup:
> a. Create Gerrit account and add username and public SSH key
> b. git clone from github which has the patch
> c. cd into c
Jean-Michel Pouré - GOOZE wrote:
> I created an account on Gerrit and looked at this URL:
> https://www.opensc-project.org/codereview/#q,status:open,n,z
>
> Some issues are marked 18 February 2012 with "Jenkins" user.
> So it seems we have GITHUB, Jenkins and Gerrit ...
>
> All this seems complic
Jean-Michel Pouré - GOOZE wrote:
> > We are also not in a democracy. We are in a security related open
> > source project.
>
> Don't get me wrong. This is an organization issue. I am not talking
> about forking OpenSC, this would be stupid.
Not neccessarily - if there is critical mass I think it
Le dimanche 19 février 2012 à 13:06 +0100, Peter Stuge a écrit :
> Jenkins may have a problem, but Gerrit looks like it is functioning
> fine, at least now. It is trying to merge commits which have been
> pushed, reviewed and submitted for merge, but where the commits have
> been pushed with depend
Viktor Tarasov wrote:
> >> Nobody doubts that review in critical.
> >> But what shall we do now, how can we 'move forward',
> >> if the review/acceptance process is stopped at the Gerrit level
> >> and the only person that is capable and has authority to do
> >> something is absent for a long time
> We are also not in a democracy. We are in a security related open
> source project.
Don't get me wrong. This is an organization issue. I am not talking
about forking OpenSC, this would be stupid. The website, teams and tools
should remain. But we need a simplier and more effective approach.
Re
Jean-Michel Pouré - GOOZE wrote:
> > Until newbies can demonstrate that they have learned the right things
> > they are by definition not moving forward.
>
> Come-on, we are not in a class-room or in an administration.
We are also not in a democracy. We are in a security related open
source proj
Le 19/02/2012 10:50, Peter Stuge a écrit :
> Jean-Michel Pouré - GOOZE wrote:
>> 1) The ePass2003 code was reviewed by Viktor and included in his branch.
>> You probably did not know, did not compile, did not test and therefore
>> Viktor's work is ignored.
> This is appropriate in my opinion, becau
Le 19/02/2012 11:23, Peter Stuge a écrit :
> Viktor Tarasov wrote:
>> Nobody doubts that review in critical.
>> But what shall we do now, how can we 'move forward',
>> if the review/acceptance process is stopped at the Gerrit level
>> and the only person that is capable and has authority to do
>> s
> Until newbies can demonstrate that they have learned the right things
> they are by definition not moving forward.
Come-on, we are not in a class-room or in an administration.
We all agree that Gerrit is the solution. So let's make it work and open
accounts for recognized developers to make su
Anders Rundgren wrote:
> For non-government tokens like the excellent Feitian Epass2003
> I would consider another approach: Updating the firmware to
> emulate PIV so that we can put the middleware aside once and
> for all.
I agree completely that all the legacy involved in tokens and cards
is hor
IMO the core problem with OpenSC is a that all cards seem to require
a tweak, profile or similar. For government IDs which are driven
by politics rather than reason there is no problem to solve; the
governments simply have to pay the price for demanding "uniqueness".
For non-government tokens li
Viktor Tarasov wrote:
> Nobody doubts that review in critical.
> But what shall we do now, how can we 'move forward',
> if the review/acceptance process is stopped at the Gerrit level
> and the only person that is capable and has authority to do
> something is absent for a long time already ?
I su
Le 17/02/2012 17:52, Peter Stuge a écrit :
> Jean-Michel Pouré - GOOZE wrote:
>> * OpenSC used to have a very flexible approach. OpenSC is NOT
>> kernel.org with thousands of developers and no need for hierarchy.
> OpenSC is smaller, but I do not agree that there is no need for any
> kind of hierar
Jean-Michel Pouré - GOOZE wrote:
> 1) The ePass2003 code was reviewed by Viktor and included in his branch.
> You probably did not know, did not compile, did not test and therefore
> Viktor's work is ignored.
This is appropriate in my opinion, because I do not think that the
commits are ready for
Dear all,
> As I understand the current policy, the patch acceptance policy is
> resumed in:
> - fixes for crying bugs go to 'master';
> - little fixes, evident limited patch goes to 'staged';
> - more consequent proposals pass to Gerrit and here waits for approval
> to be applied to 'staged'.
Th
18 matches
Mail list logo
