[Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github
gubatron at gmail.com
Fri Aug 22 19:31:43 UTC 2014
+1000. Don't fix it if it ain't broken. Don't kill community support. I for
instance wouldn't have contributed or forked if the project hadn't been on
"Bitcoin has currently 4132 forks on Github. This means that you can get
contributions by pull requests from 4132 developers. That is a HUGE amount,
and you shouldn't ditch that due to not using all features of git :)
To get a grasp of how much that is: When you search projects with more than
4100 forks, there are only 32 of them!
You are one of the top open source projects, and you should be grateful for
that and keep Github up so the other people can send you pull requests with
their improvements :) Volunteer contributions need to be honored and made as
easy as possible, for people are investing their personal time.
Greetings and thanks for your work,
xor, one developer of https://freenetproject.org"
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 3:20 PM, xor <xor at freenetproject.org> 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 usually is caused by using Git the
> way or not knowing its capabilities. Nobody can modify / insert a commit
> before a GnuPG signed commit / tag without breaking the signature.
> More detail at the bottom at , I am sparing you this here because I
> you already know it and there is something more important I want to stress:
> Bitcoin has currently 4132 forks on Github. This means that you can get
> contributions by pull requests from 4132 developers. That is a HUGE amount,
> and you shouldn't ditch that due to not using all features of git :)
> To get a grasp of how much that is: When you search projects with more than
> 4100 forks, there are only 32 of them!
> You are one of the top open source projects, and you should be grateful for
> that and keep Github up so the other people can send you pull requests with
> their improvements :) Volunteer contributions need to be honored and made
> easy as possible, for people are investing their personal time.
> Greetings and thanks for your work,
> xor, one developer of https://freenetproject.org
>  If you GPG-sign a commit / tag, you sign its hash, including the hash
> the previous commit. So is a chain of hashes and thus of trust from all
> commits up to what is signed. It's pretty similar to the blockchain
> So Github cannot modify anything. If they did, the head of the hash-chain
> would change, and thus the signature would break. Git would notify people
> about that when they pull.
> Of course people can still ignore that warning and let Github rewrite their
> Git history. But people who aren't educated about this shouldn't be release
> managers. They should not even have push access to your main repository,
> should only be sending pull requests. Thats is where the decentralization
> Git is: In the pull-requests. The people who deal with them should verify
> and possibly even commit signatures carefully, and not accept anything
> is not signed. Also, before deploying a binary, the very same commit which
> going to become a binary has to be given a signed tag by the release
> and by everyone who reviews the code. The person who deploys the actual
> needs to verify that signature.
> There is an article which elaborates on some of the ways you have to ensure
> Github doesn't insert malicious code - but please read it with care, some
> its recommendations are bad, especially the part where its about rebasing
> because that DOES rewrite history which is what you want to prevent:
> Slashdot TV.
> Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bitcoin-dev