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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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:
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
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
19 matches
Mail list logo
