>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, and GnuPG signs it.
Indeed. I always use that look at and test and the merges locally before pushing them. I never use the github merge button. I'd recommend other people to do so as well - and as can be seen with `git log --show-signature` it's common practice. For browsing git history locally I find "gitk" to be a useful tool. I'd absolutely encourage for more people to review code changes. Even better if a few people do this through local tooling instead of the web page. But my gut feeling is that hosting the code on github results in many more eyes on the code overall than would be when requiring *everyone* to use local tools. It's easy to let paranoia get in the way of actual effectiveness. Wladimir ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. http://tv.slashdot.org/ _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
