Re: Building Website

2021-07-27 Thread Florian Dold
Hi t3ss, Is the pip you're invoking pip2 or pip3? Maybe you're installing the package for Python2, when the Website builder is using Python3. Could you post the output of "pip --version"? - Florian On 7/27/21 2:15 PM, t3sserakt wrote: Hello *, although I run pip install jinja2.ext I go

Re: Git commit messages

2020-05-27 Thread Florian Dold
On 5/27/20 2:46 PM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: > Here, a message of "fix #1234" is NOT sufficient. > I have done so myself and have found ~50 in the current log since 0.12.1. > Those are not useful messages. Having to do to mantis to check the changes > meaning > is quite annoying. Especially if

Re: Git commit messages

2020-05-27 Thread Florian Dold
On 5/27/20 1:58 PM, Daniel Golle wrote: > Yes, let's please establish something like that. I've tried my best > myself, but that's like 0.01% of GNUnet commits -- and of course, > as was pointed out in a previous debate on that, GNUnet is not the > Linux kernel and experimentation becomes very

Re: Let BIO also handle already allocated buffers

2020-04-19 Thread Florian Dold
Hi *, On 4/19/20 5:31 PM, Alessio Vanni wrote: > In my opinion, a nicer approach could be something based on Java's > Buffer object from the NIO package. For example (again no error > checking; also the names could use some more work): We already have something exactly like that: https://git.gn

Re: [GNUnet-developers] arm service status

2019-09-24 Thread Florian Dold
ss that couldn't be started in the first place (since the binary doesn't exist). But that's not really that bad. - Florian On 9/24/19 11:22 AM, Christian Grothoff wrote: > On 9/24/19 11:14 AM, Florian Dold wrote: >> Hi *, >> >> I ran into two usability issues with

Re: [GNUnet-developers] arm service status

2019-09-24 Thread Florian Dold
7;t be started in the first place (since the binary doesn't exist). But that's not really that bad. - Florian On 9/24/19 11:22 AM, Christian Grothoff wrote: > On 9/24/19 11:14 AM, Florian Dold wrote: >> Hi *, >> >> I ran into two usability issues with GNUnet's a

[GNUnet-developers] arm service status

2019-09-24 Thread Florian Dold
Hi *, I ran into two usability issues with GNUnet's arm: When a service couldn't be executed at all because the binary doesn't exist, arm logs a message at the *info* log level. This means the message usually won't be seen *anywhere*, since the info log level is too verbose and thus supressed.

Re: [GNUnet-developers] .dir-local.el for all/most repos

2019-04-18 Thread Florian Dold
4/18/19 2:44 PM, Hartmut Goebel wrote: > Am 18.04.19 um 14:31 schrieb Florian Dold: >> I am curious why this file had to be committed *individually* to every >> repository, including the wallet and python repositories? It's >> completely useless for these projects >

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Coding style clang-format

2019-04-15 Thread Florian Dold
Hi Hartmut, It's a bit disheartening to see an honest attempt to improve things being shot down like this. The clang-format style that Martin created tries to mirror what style the existing codebase already has or is supposed to have. If you want to make any tweaks on top of that, please contrib

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Discussion, and Help Wanted: Moving to Gitlab for Git, CI, and Issues

2019-04-10 Thread Florian Dold
On 4/10/19 1:10 AM, Raphael Arias wrote: > I don't see why the database of a read-only legacy system would need to > be regularly backed up. If it remains online purely as an archive > (possibly with a note to go see the gitlab issue tracker) history is > preserved while not forcing anyone to do re

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Discussion, and Help Wanted: Moving to Gitlab for Git, CI, and Issues

2019-04-08 Thread Florian Dold
> No, we don't. We dvn et al are faced with unreasonable requirements for the > use of gitlab which include: > > - Migration of Mantis issues -> completely unnecessary. Mantis could remain > read-only for the "legacy" issues and gitlab used for new issues. > - No user forks, no pull requests ->

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Discussion, and Help Wanted: Moving to Gitlab for Git, CI, and Issues

2019-04-07 Thread Florian Dold
On 4/7/19 6:46 PM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: > The CAA does not help in any way. You are still liable as a platform. It has > literally nothing to do with the copyright infringements if the contributor > copied code from somewhere else. You cannot delegate this responsibility > anymore to the

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Discussion, and Help Wanted: Moving to Gitlab for Git, CI, and Issues

2019-04-07 Thread Florian Dold
9 12:47 PM, Florian Dold wrote: > On 4/7/19 8:33 AM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: >> Contributors should be able to do anything they want in their own namespaces >> including committing code that does not compile (e.g. for their gnunet.git >> forks). >> However, in order to

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Discussion, and Help Wanted: Moving to Gitlab for Git, CI, and Issues

2019-04-07 Thread Florian Dold
On 4/7/19 8:33 AM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: > Contributors should be able to do anything they want in their own namespaces > including committing code that does not compile (e.g. for their gnunet.git > forks). > However, in order to get it into the "main" gnunet project codebase, the CI > mus

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Discussion, and Help Wanted: Moving to Gitlab for Git, CI, and Issues

2019-04-07 Thread Florian Dold
On 4/7/19 6:29 AM, Devan C. - dvn wrote: > Until email/smtp is setup we will not have confirmation emails. Ah. I assumed the setup was mostly complete and you wanted feedback. > Neither of these are actual problems right now, because it is easy > enough to manually administer, prune, and moderat

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Discussion, and Help Wanted: Moving to Gitlab for Git, CI, and Issues

2019-04-06 Thread Florian Dold
Thanks for taking the time to set this up. So far some things don't seem right yet: There is a massive security problem. Everybody (!!) is able to create accounts and set their password, *without* being the owner of the respective email address. As "proof", I've been so friendly to create an ac

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Updating my git work-in-progess branch?

2019-03-19 Thread Florian Dold
On 3/19/19 6:55 PM, Christian Grothoff wrote: > On 3/16/19 10:32 PM, Florian Dold wrote: >> The model of "nobody should push to master" is great if you have the >> right tooling on the server, but breaks GPG signing of commits by the >> author, AFAICT. > >

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Updating my git work-in-progess branch?

2019-03-19 Thread Florian Dold
On 3/19/19 8:05 PM, n...@n0.is wrote: > Christian Grothoff transcribed 5.4K bytes: > See my last message and read it. It depends on if this > is applicable. I'll spend tomorrow looking into the 2 > codebases and deciding on if/how this can be applied > for us. Please see ssh://g...@git.taler.ne

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Updating my git work-in-progess branch?

2019-03-16 Thread Florian Dold
I agree with what you've said about not encoding hierarchies in gitolite. I also think that either nobody or everybody should be able to merge into master. The model of "nobody should push to master" is great if you have the right tooling on the server, but breaks GPG signing of commits by the au

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Proposal: Make GNUnet Great Again?

2019-02-10 Thread Florian Dold
On 2/10/19 1:55 PM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: >> An example for such >> tooling would be Googles's Repo tool >> (https://source.android.com/setup/develop / >> https://source.android.com/setup/develop/repo). > > > Actually, google is an example for a proponents of monorepos. So your point > is

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Proposal: Make GNUnet Great Again?

2019-02-09 Thread Florian Dold
From my experience with working on GNU Taler, I tend to agree with the arguments *against* multirepos, especially for GNUnet. Multirepos tend to work well if either: a) The language you're using has support for project-local package dependencies. This is the case for JavaScript (with npm/yarn),

Re: [GNUnet-developers] proposal: changes to documentation

2018-09-15 Thread Florian Dold
I'm not the biggest fan of texinfo either, but it works. mandoc looks like a terrible replacement, and I strongly disagree with your proposal of switching to it. When comparing the documentation of mandoc/mdoc http://mandoc.bsd.lv/man/mandoc.1.html http://mandoc.bsd.lv/mdoc/ to GNUnet or ev

Re: [GNUnet-developers] contrib/guix

2018-09-07 Thread Florian Dold
On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 4:25 PM Nils Gillmann wrote: > could you please document 'contrib/guix' somewhere? I will keep using > my personal modules which were moved around. The purpose of the directory is already explained in the README file in the contrib/guix directory. Please let me know if I m

Re: [GNUnet-developers] New README.md and Github

2018-08-01 Thread Florian Dold
On 08/01/2018 06:23 PM, Nils Gillmann wrote: > I just responded to an off-list message from Christian with an example of > someone I study with. I think they are younger than I am, and have some > but not too much experience with Free Software. Not a complete beginner. > I had to point them to the

Re: [GNUnet-developers] New README.md and Github

2018-08-01 Thread Florian Dold
I agree that we should not encourage or endorse using proprietary code hosting sites such as GitHub. I'm strongly against accepting contributions on GitHub. Even if the Gentoo project decided to do that, it remains a bad idea. The furthest we could go is have a read-only mirror with issues, pull re

Re: [GNUnet-developers] GNUNET_assert cannot specify component to log from?

2016-12-02 Thread Florian Dold
On 12/02/2016 09:23 AM, Markus Teich wrote: > Heyho, > > I can't seem to find any macro in the GNUNET_assert/GNUNET_break family which > allows me to specify the component used for logging (like with > GNUNET_log_from). > Is this intentional? Is every component expected to define their own assert