Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

2014-08-29 Thread Odinn Cyberguerrilla
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Jeff Garzik jgar...@bitpay.com 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

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 ho...@hozed.org 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

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

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 with that

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

2014-08-23 Thread Pieter Wuille
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Troy Benjegerdes ho...@hozed.org 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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

2014-08-23 Thread Drak
On 23 August 2014 12:38, Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com 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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

2014-08-23 Thread Wladimir
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com 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,

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 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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

2014-08-23 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Paul Rabahy prab...@gmail.com 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

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

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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

2014-08-20 Thread Wladimir
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 3:26 AM, Troy Benjegerdes ho...@hozed.org 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.

[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:

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

2014-08-19 Thread Wladimir
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Jeff Garzik jgar...@bitpay.com 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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

2014-08-19 Thread Bryan Bishop
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 7:02 AM, Jeff Garzik jgar...@bitpay.com 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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

2014-08-19 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 5:02 AM, Jeff Garzik jgar...@bitpay.com 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:

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 jgar...@bitpay.com 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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

2014-08-19 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Troy Benjegerdes ho...@hozed.org 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