Re: [PD-dev] moving to git

Hi, On 19/10/15 17:48, Roman Haefeli wrote: On Fri, 2015-10-16 at 19:45 +, Jonathan Wilkes wrote: If you do that over http then you don't have any way of knowing whether the data that you requested is the data that you get back. With HTTPS you also don't know that. HTTPS changes the trus

Re: [PD-dev] moving to git

On Fri, 2015-10-16 at 19:45 +, Jonathan Wilkes wrote: > Hi Roman, > If you do that over http then you don't have any way of knowing > whether the > > data that you requested is the data that you get back. Ah, I see. In my short-sighted notion of security I was only thinking about not reveali

Re: [PD-dev] moving to git

Hi Roman,If you do that over http then you don't have any way of knowing whether the data that you requested is the data that you get back. If you're going to be using this system, I'd suggest just hopping on the git user list and asking what is the best protocol to use by default for a publicly

Re: [PD-dev] moving to git

On 10/16/2015 07:32 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote: > On 10/16/2015 02:41 PM, Roman Haefeli wrote: >> Ok, so what's the fuzz about non-secure connections when the repo's >> purpose is to _clone_ from it? >> > > because the repository could have been tempered with. > > i *think* I have a proper solu

Re: [PD-dev] moving to git

On 10/16/2015 12:24 AM, Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-dev wrote: > Oh, those are both absolutely insecure by default. "both"? > You (and Sourceforge) > default to insecure connections. Sourceforge only forces the encryption when > the user needs to write something. > > Nevertheless, I think it'

Re: [PD-dev] moving to git

On 10/16/2015 02:41 PM, Roman Haefeli wrote: > Ok, so what's the fuzz about non-secure connections when the repo's > purpose is to _clone_ from it? > because the repository could have been tempered with. i *think* I have a proper solution to the problem, that is unrelated to https: if I gpg-sign

Re: [PD-dev] moving to git

On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 16:15 +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > On 2015-07-30 11:05, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > > ad #3 > > i really would like to split that huge repository into small projects > > (mainly: per-library). > > i've already started working on this on [1], which is nothing much to >

Re: [PD-dev] moving to git

Thanks a lot Iohannes for this and for all of your efforts to maintain Pd related stuff. cheers antoine -- do it yourself http://antoine.villeret.free.fr 2015-10-16 8:32 GMT+02:00 Chris McCormick : > On 14/10/15 22:15, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > >> all the git-repositories can be found at >>

Re: [PD-dev] moving to git

On 14/10/15 22:15, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: all the git-repositories can be found at http://git.puredata.info/cgit/svn2git/ Wow! Thank you. Cheers, Chris. -- http://mccormick.cx/ ___ Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at http://lists.pureda

Re: [PD-dev] moving to git

Oh, those are both absolutely insecure by default.  You (and Sourceforge) default to insecure connections.  Sourceforge only forces the encryption when the user needs to write something.  Nevertheless, I think it's cases like this one which "Let's Encrypt" is designed to solve.  I'm happy to

Re: [PD-dev] moving to git

On 10/15/2015 10:40 PM, katja wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 9:47 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: >> On 2015-10-14 21:59, katja wrote: >>> So you've imported all Pd libraries from svn into git, preserving >>> commit history... great initiative IOhannes! And it is hosted by IEM, >>> couldn't be be

Re: [PD-dev] moving to git

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 9:47 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > On 2015-10-14 21:59, katja wrote: >> So you've imported all Pd libraries from svn into git, preserving >> commit history... great initiative IOhannes! And it is hosted by IEM, >> couldn't be better. >> >> What is your idea, should all m

Re: [PD-dev] moving to git

Hi IOhannes, Thanks for the hard work. From here, forking is probably trival. Greetings, Fred Jan On 2015-10-14 04:15 PM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > On 2015-07-30 11:05, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: >> ad #3 >> i really would like to split that huge repository into small projects >> (mainly: pe

Re: [PD-dev] moving to git

On 2015-10-14 21:59, katja wrote: > So you've imported all Pd libraries from svn into git, preserving > commit history... great initiative IOhannes! And it is hosted by IEM, > couldn't be better. > > What is your idea, should all maintainers immediately stop committing > to SVN, and fork their lib

Re: [PD-dev] moving to git

On 2015-10-14 22:30, Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-dev wrote: > Oh wow, I guess it's been awhile since I've used Sourceforge. It looks like > they just offer svn (which isn't secure) and http by default. Yikes. it seems indeed a while since you've used sourceforge. you might start by reading [1]. you

Re: [PD-dev] moving to git

On 2015-10-14 22:30, Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-dev wrote: > Oh wow, I guess it's been awhile since I've used Sourceforge. It looks like > they just offer svn (which isn't secure) and http by default. Yikes. > It's 2015. Users should get an encrypted connection to repos by default, no > exceptions

Re: [PD-dev] moving to git

javet...@gmail.com>> > Date: October 14, 2015 at 1:59:41 PM MDT > To: IOhannes m zmoelnig mailto:zmoel...@iem.at>> > Cc: pd-dev@lists.iem.at <mailto:pd-dev@lists.iem.at> > Subject: Re: [PD-dev] moving to git > > > So you've imported all Pd libraries from svn

Re: [PD-dev] moving to git

Oh wow, I guess it's been awhile since I've used Sourceforge.  It looks like  they just offer svn (which isn't secure) and http by default.  Yikes. It's 2015.  Users should get an encrypted connection to repos by default, no  exceptions. It's extraordinary to me that you'd let the limitations of St

Re: [PD-dev] moving to git

So you've imported all Pd libraries from svn into git, preserving commit history... great initiative IOhannes! And it is hosted by IEM, couldn't be better. What is your idea, should all maintainers immediately stop committing to SVN, and fork their libraries to git repositories? Some libraries do

Re: [PD-dev] moving to git

On 10/14/2015 08:01 PM, Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-dev wrote: > As strongly and politely as I can advise: PLEASE don't pull until IOhannes > implements SSL by default for these repos. the only problem here is that my certificate is only valid for apt.puredata.info/puredata.info and *not* for git.pure

Re: [PD-dev] moving to git

As strongly and politely as I can advise: PLEASE don't pull until IOhannes implements SSL by default for these repos. While it's wise to move away from Sourceforge, it's irresponsible to force a user in the year 2015 into an insecure connection in order to do so. -Jonathan On Wednesday,

Re: [PD-dev] moving to git

On 2015-07-30 11:05, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > ad #3 > i really would like to split that huge repository into small projects > (mainly: per-library). > i've already started working on this on [1], which is nothing much to > show yet, but in the end it should document the process and provide a >

Re: [PD-dev] moving to git?

On 2015-08-06 15:54, Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-dev wrote: > > In the original scheme I would just keep bothering you or Hans > to give commit access to someone wanting to adopt an external > lib. In the new scheme will I just keep bothering you until you add > a reference to the centralized list? >

Re: [PD-dev] moving to git?

On 07/31/2015 04:23 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote: On 07/31/2015 10:12 PM, Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-dev wrote: On 07/31/2015 03:15 PM, Jamie Bullock wrote: How about: authors / maintainers can host their externals wherever they like, but we maintain a “meta” repository on GitHub that includes all

Re: [PD-dev] moving to git?

I assume Linus would be slightly suspicious getting a pull request from himself. :) But in cases where there's no obvious hierarchy for new users to enter the network, oversights like these are surely dangerous.  Unfortunately the free software community infrastructure has the same issues-- 1)

Re: [PD-dev] moving to git?

Ha ha: https://github.com/amoffat/masquerade/commit/9b0562595cc479ac8696110cb0a2d33f8f2b7d29 Chris. -- http://mccormick.cx/ On 01/08/2015, at 11:59, Chris McCormick wrote: > On 01/08/15 04:12, Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-dev wrote: >> And why do you prefer Github to Sourceforge? What's different

Re: [PD-dev] moving to git?

On 01/08/15 04:12, Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-dev wrote: And why do you prefer Github to Sourceforge? What's different enough in their business model that there is no inherent conflict between serving the free software community on the one hand and monetizing their users/userdata on the other? "..

Re: [PD-dev] moving to git?

On 31 July 2015 at 21:24:29, IOhannes m zmölnig (zmoel...@iem.at) wrote: On 07/31/2015 10:12 PM, Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-dev wrote: > On 07/31/2015 03:15 PM, Jamie Bullock wrote: >> >> How about: authors / maintainers can host their externals wherever >> they like, but we maintain a “meta”

Re: [PD-dev] moving to git?

On 07/31/2015 10:12 PM, Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-dev wrote: > On 07/31/2015 03:15 PM, Jamie Bullock wrote: >> >> How about: authors / maintainers can host their externals wherever >> they like, but we maintain a “meta” repository on GitHub that includes >> all the various external [sic] repositories

Re: [PD-dev] moving to git?

On 07/31/2015 03:15 PM, Jamie Bullock wrote: On 31 July 2015 at 19:40:32, IOhannes m zmölnig (zmoel...@iem.at ) wrote: On 07/31/2015 04:36 AM, Chris McCormick wrote: > On 30/07/15 17:05, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: >> in any case, i thought that it might be better to r

Re: [PD-dev] moving to git?

On 31 July 2015 at 19:40:32, IOhannes m zmölnig (zmoel...@iem.at) wrote: On 07/31/2015 04:36 AM, Chris McCormick wrote:  > On 30/07/15 17:05, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:  >> in any case, i thought that it might be better to really allow the devs  >> themselves to pick *any* hoster they prefer, be

Re: [PD-dev] moving to git?

On 07/31/2015 04:36 AM, Chris McCormick wrote: > On 30/07/15 17:05, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: >> in any case, i thought that it might be better to really allow the devs >> themselves to pick *any* hoster they prefer, be it your own gitlab >> instance, OSUOSL, github, or even sf. > > The good thin

Re: [PD-dev] moving to git? (was Re: Pd-dev Digest, Vol 124, Issue 2)

On 30/07/15 17:05, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: in any case, i thought that it might be better to really allow the devs themselves to pick *any* hoster they prefer, be it your own gitlab instance, OSUOSL, github, or even sf. The good thing about this is we don't even need to "allow" anybody to do

Re: [PD-dev] moving to git? (was Re: Pd-dev Digest, Vol 124, Issue 2)

Hi IOhannes, Thanks for the writeup and the work already done preparing the svn-git migration. I expect to migrate the cyclone stuff later this year, but have to decide the location. For cyclone I foresee two variants; the common separate object set and a Max/MSP 4.x migration set, with maxmode a

Re: [PD-dev] moving to git? (was Re: Pd-dev Digest, Vol 124, Issue 2)

On 07/30/2015 06:46 PM, Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-dev wrote: > > Btw-- could you make Gem a priority? It appears it's already in git. not sure i understand what it is you want me to do with Gem. Gem has switched to git 4 years ago (history preserving), and is currently hosted on github. it also d

Re: [PD-dev] moving to git? (was Re: Pd-dev Digest, Vol 124, Issue 2)

Btw-- could you make Gem a priority?  It appears it's already in git.  And since it's fairly self-contained migrating it doesn't come with all the issues of (dis)organization that splitting up Pd-extended svn does. Also-- what do we do with the binaries that are currently on Sourceforge?Can we