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 ma
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 ma
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 identit
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 identit
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-bet
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-bet
Am Freitag, 3. April 2009 02:30:09 schrieb Daniel Cheng:
> > NextGen$
> >
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
>
> [..]
>
> > G3IAoIo?
>
> Your pgp signature is charset corrupted.
The pgp signature is pure ASCII, how can it possibly be charset corrupted?
Looks fine to me, btw.
--
| _ | A
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.
--
| _ | A
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?
>>
>> Y
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 so
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 answer
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?
>>
>> Ye
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 so
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 answer
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 maintena
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 maintena
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
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
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
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
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
On Friday 03 April 2009 15:50:28 Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Florent Daigni?re <
> nextgens at 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
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 slowl
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
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
> >
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 slowl
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=5dfd736f95b3d84a18b5bb8e50a
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
Florent Daigni?re wrote:
> * Daniel Cheng [2009-04-03 08:30:09]:
>
>> 2009/4/3 Florent Daigni?re :
>>> * Ian Clarke [2009-04-02 17:44:37]:
>>>
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 1:55 PM, NextGen$ >>> freenetproject.org>wrote:
> Toad said on an other thread you wanted us to keep the same kind o
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=5dfd736f95b3d84a18b5bb8e50a
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 W?rfel System: http://1w6.org - einfach saubere (Rollenspiel-) Re
Daniel Cheng wrote:
> Florent Daigni?re wrote:
>> * Daniel Cheng [2009-04-03 08:30:09]:
>>
>>> 2009/4/3 Florent Daigni?re :
* Ian Clarke [2009-04-02 17:44:37]:
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 1:55 PM, NextGen$ freenetproject.org>wrote:
>
>> Toad said on an other thread you wan
On Friday 03 April 2009 14:14:41 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> $ hg sign [REVISION]
git tag -s -m
Built-in.
David
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digita
Am Freitag 03 April 2009 12:18:11 schrieb Florent Daigni?re:
> 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
* Daniel Cheng [2009-04-03 08:30:09]:
> 2009/4/3 Florent Daigni?re :
> > * Ian Clarke [2009-04-02 17:44:37]:
> >
> >> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 1:55 PM, NextGen$ >> freenetproject.org>wrote:
> >>
> >> > Toad said on an other thread you wanted us to keep the same kind of
> >> > "workflow" : all the
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 th
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Florent Daigni?re <
nextgens at 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 proce
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
___
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-) Re
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 th
2009/4/3 Florent Daigni?re :
> * Ian Clarke [2009-04-02 17:44:37]:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 1:55 PM, NextGen$ > freenetproject.org>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
>>
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
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 d
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://e
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
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
* 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
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 authoritati
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 th
* Ian Clarke [2009-04-02 17:44:37]:
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 1:55 PM, NextGen$ freenetproject.org>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 int
* 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 u
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 t
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
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 d
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 authoritati
* 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 pictur
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 t
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 g
* 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 u
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 g
60 matches
Mail list logo
