Hi Peter,
I am not going to respond to the individual steps inline as I do not have
anything particular to add there.
But I have experienced exactly the same issue. Unfortunately, I am not sure
what the underlying problem is.
Maybe Christian knows of some open blocking bugs in cadet.
Personally
Hi,
I kind of agree.
> On 26. Oct 2017, at 19:51, carlo von lynX wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 05:42:45PM +0200, Christian Grothoff wrote:
>> 2) Yes, running in the 'global' network with outdated peers is likely to
>> cause all kinds of fun problems, as the DHT may or may not work, or in
>
ase and
> gnunet.org/hostlist for git.
> (At least that's the way I read it.)
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 06:56:44 +, ng0 wrote:
>> Schanzenbach, Martin transcribed 4.5K bytes:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I kind of agree.
>>>
>>>>
n the code this might be done?
> (I found version numbers for the APIs.)
>
> Greets,
> xrs
>
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 11:02:25 +
> ng0 wrote:
>
>> Schanzenbach, Martin transcribed 7.0K bytes:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> to clarify: having a (publ
Hi,
I would mentor the REST project (again).
Further, I am thinking about a zero-knowledge GNS record based on zkSNARKS or
Bulletproof.
This could be used in combination with GNS to serve privacy-preserving
attribute-based credentials.
WDYT?
I am also open to co-mentoring any of the other pro
Hi,
> On 26. Jan 2018, at 01:07, amirouche wrote:
>
> Héllo,
>
>
> I got into creating a new logo for gnunet and work on the new gnunet website.
Any reason for that? I quite like the current logo. It represents the name very
well (A GNU on a net).
Maybe it could be modernised in some way, th
> On 26. Jan 2018, at 19:31, carlo von lynX wrote:
>
> Martin, we are the minority of people who accepted
> the gnu on the web...
You have anything to back that claim?
> maybe we want to extend our
> audience to the people that think that such a home-
> grown logo doesn't stand for professiona
design standards (see links in the links) the
current icon is maybe not ideal, but good.
> On 26. Jan 2018, at 20:45, Schanzenbach, Martin
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 26. Jan 2018, at 19:31, carlo von lynX
>> wrote:
>>
>> Martin, we are the minority of pe
> On 27. Jan 2018, at 10:09, amirouche wrote:
>
> Thanks everyone for the feedback!
>
> I will not reply to every single mail and try to summarize the the whole
> thread here.
>
> Le ven. 26 janv. 2018 à 23:44, Marcel Klehr a écrit :
>> Hey everyone,
>> as a long time lurker, tried-it-once-
Thanks!
Looks great.
Initially, I was pretty skeptical. But I really like the last few batches from
everyone.
The one I dig the most at the moment is the wireframe GNU.
Although the design is clearly borrowed from the Guix icon, it is a nice
makeover of the current logo because it keeps the "GNU
Registered. How/Where do we collect the ideas? And how to they end up in the
GSoC portal again?
Further, as a reminder: I am willing to co-mentor. If you want to share the
load etc please tell me now before I think of more projects.
BR
Martin
> On 12. Feb 2018, at 22:39, Christian Grothoff w
Hi,
I have a few "concerns":
> On 3. Mar 2018, at 23:06, Christian Grothoff wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I've just pushed a significant change to GNS to master, which may affect
> some of you and I wanted to make sure you're not caught unaware.
>
> Basically, I've removed the restriction that GNS
en _I_ must populate that namespace. I
cannot delegate it anymore.
With a default root namespace (formerly known as "gns-master"), what namespace
would I use for delegation of the "de" TLD?
> On 4. Mar 2018, at 11:32, Christian Grothoff wrote:
>
> On 03/04/2018 08:
> On 4. Mar 2018, at 13:56, Schanzenbach, Martin
> wrote:
>
> I don't understand how you can delegate TLDs.
> In GNUnet currently we have identities (=local namespaces).
> As I understand it, those are now the TLDs handled locally via GNS.
> How can I delegate a TLD
AAh. Now I get it ;)
> On 4. Mar 2018, at 14:03, Christian Grothoff wrote:
>
> On 03/04/2018 01:57 PM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:
>>> I don't understand how you can delegate TLDs.
>>> In GNUnet currently we have identities (=local namespaces).
>>> A
> On 4. Mar 2018, at 15:15, carlo von lynX wrote:
>
> I generally welcome this new development, although
>
> On Sun, Mar 04, 2018 at 08:45:51AM +0100, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:
>>> 1) IETF doesn't want us to use those, having rejected our draft for 4+
>&g
Hi,
I need two clarifications as this change basically broke everything ;)
1. API:
The GNS_lookup API call takes a zone to look up in. Previously tools looked up
the "gns-master" for a sane default value.
This is no longer needed I guess??
If yes, we should remove it.
2. Proxy:
The proxy still
Hi,
I think I "fixed" the proxy. It is not pretty but works for me now.
> On 5. Mar 2018, at 18:42, Christian Grothoff wrote:
>
> On 03/05/2018 05:14 PM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I need two clarifications as this change basically
Hi Jeff,
Quick question: To what degree is gnunet-rs usable?
I would really like to move the REST APIs to rocket (https://rocket.rs/).
Maybe that would also be a nice GSoC task. But I not sure how reasonable such a
proposal would be?
BR
Martin
> On 17. Jan 2018, at 19:09, Jeff Burdges wrote:
>
018, at 01:20, Christian Grothoff wrote:
>
> There is a GSoC page on gnunet.org, which you ought to be able to edit.
>
> co-mentoring will depend on the subject...
>
> On 02/14/2018 08:03 AM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:
>> Registered. How/Where do we collect the ideas? An
Hi,
I guess one thing is that we need (gn|c)url for other things than downloading
(e.g. proxying see gns). Can wget do other things?
A brief look at the API makes me doubt that.
If not, then wget2 is just another additional dependency.
BR
> On 22. Mar 2018, at 19:13, ng0 wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> r
Nevermind. It does supports all HTTP Verbs.
> On 23. Mar 2018, at 07:15, Schanzenbach, Martin
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I guess one thing is that we need (gn|c)url for other things than downloading
> (e.g. proxying see gns). Can wget do other things?
> A brief look at the
So. Christian is a bit better with those things but I have just taken a brief
look into wget2.
The thing is that curl has a "nice" way of having your own scheduling (using
curl_multi_perform etc).
As far as I can see wget2 (apart from having a _huge_ kitchensink as well) does
internal multithrea
Hi,
"Proper" CI is something I really miss atm. I am kind of used to gitlab-ci atm
and it is really nice to work with and setup as it is docker based.
I further propose one other thing that is a low hanging fruit given a good CI
system: Dockerize gnunet
A gnunet docker image that is continuousl
Hmm. The nssdir thing is just a warning.
There seems to be a permissions problem for the configure files (such as
config.log).
That must be rooted in the build system (guix?) in this case though.
For example: I guess you could reproduce it by executing configure as root and
then after as user. Re
This seems odd:
> On 9. Apr 2018, at 15:07, Nils Gillmann wrote:
>
> ldconfig: command not found
Are you sure that build environment is sane?
- Martin
GPG: 3D11063C10F98D14BD24D1470B0998EF86F59B6A
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_
Hey.
I don't thing the "//" should be an issue (albeit unnecessary).
Maybe the directory is not created?
BR
> On 7. May 2018, at 07:59, Nils Gillmann wrote:
>
> Nils Gillmann transcribed 1.8K bytes:
>> Christian Grothoff transcribed 3.9K bytes:
>>> On 05/06/2018 08:34 PM, Nils Gillmann wrote:
> On 7. May 2018, at 10:03, Nils Gillmann wrote:
>
> Nils Gillmann transcribed 3.7K bytes:
>> Nils Gillmann transcribed 3.0K bytes:
>>> Schanzenbach, Martin transcribed 4.1K bytes:
>>>> Hey.
>>>>
>>>> I don't thing the "//&qu
Hi,
> On 17. May 2018, at 13:25, hyazin...@emailn.de wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> seeing the logo, this network forming the silouette of a gnu, sparked
> excitement in me.
> This is an improvement to the current logo. And it motivated me to
> play a little bit around with its relationship to added wri
e Switzerland or Germany, depending on who applies.
> It's not a good solution, but who knows what some random company is
> daydreaming of...
>
>>
>>
>> I read reports that DTAG also applied for a trademark on the term
>> "internet". So at least ther
18:57, Nils Gillmann wrote:
>
> Schanzenbach, Martin transcribed 10K bytes:
>> Hey,
>>
>>> On 17. May 2018, at 17:12, Nils Gillmann wrote:
>>>
>>> Christian Grothoff transcribed 34K bytes:
>>>> Dear all,
> …
>>>> On 0
I do not want to hijack the other thread so I open this.
I can help with the bib, but when I do a "make" in the gnunetbib (after I fix
all the quote errors) I get 2295 "ERROR"s a la:
ERROR: Misformed pages in 1962
ERROR: reed60polynomial has no www_section field
ERROR: Misformed pages in reed60po
electors do not work, yet. Not sure how they work anyway though.
BR
Martin
> On 17. May 2018, at 20:04, Schanzenbach, Martin
> wrote:
>
> I do not want to hijack the other thread so I open this.
> I can help with the bib, but when I do a "make" in the gnunetbib (after I fix
> On 17. May 2018, at 21:13, Nils Gillmann wrote:
>
> Schanzenbach, Martin transcribed 3.1K bytes:
>> I do not want to hijack the other thread so I open this.
>> I can help with the bib, but when I do a "make" in the gnunetbib (after I
>> fix all the q
Hi,
my 2 cents on the Installation Handbook:
I actually thing that installing from source is not something the average joe
should have to do.
Ideally there is an installer package (MSI,dmg/pkg,.deb/.rpm).
Alternatively (and temporarily until we are in alpha/beta), we could provide a
docker imag
> On 3. Jun 2018, at 22:33, Nils Gillmann wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Schanzenbach, Martin transcribed 6.5K bytes:
>> Hi,
>>
>> my 2 cents on the Installation Handbook:
>
> thanks :)
>
>> I actually thing that installing from source is not somethi
s/installer) (WIP!)
Eventually this could be changed into:
1. I just want to use it (binary packages/installer)
2. I want to develop! (from source)
3. Optional: Use docker image to run GNUnet without installing
> On 4. Jun 2018, at 10:34, Nils Gillmann wrote:
>
> Nils Gillmann tran
Yes. I think this is a relict from the scaffolding hello world from angular.
Will be changed to AGPL.
BR
> On 9. Jun 2018, at 17:36, Christian Grothoff wrote:
>
> Dear Phil and Martin,
>
> Prompted by Nils, I just looked at the WebUI code and there are more
> issues. First of all, it should r
Hi,
we already had a discussion some time ago wrt reverse lookups of names.
I currently have a (usability) need, where I want to translate a PKEY back to
TLD, if possible.
After the recent changes this would involve (fora given key P):
1. Checking if a local identity matches P, if yes, return it
GNOME is actually a very good example for a project that has it's own and very
good contribution guidelines (https://www.gnome.org/get-involved/).
Btw just look at the FAQs of the Github page:
https://wiki.gnome.org/Sysadmin/GitHub
Pull requests -> No, Issues -> No
What is the point of github
Hi,
I am getting a lot of those lately from the gnunet.org peer:
Oct 01 16:24:32-354230 transport-824 ERROR Assertion failed at
gnunet-service-transport_validation.c:896.
Oct 01 16:24:32-354243 transport-824 ERROR Address with 24 bytes for plugin tcp
and peer DSTJ is malformed
does sb know wha
Hi,
does it make sense to implement this [1] for GNS/GNUnet identities?
Maybe as a GSoC?
BR
[1] https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-spec/
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
GNUnet-developers mailing list
GNUnet-developers@gnu.org
ht
> On 14. Jan 2019, at 22:25, Christian Grothoff wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
> On 1/14/19 7:35 PM, n...@n0.is wrote:
>> I started a new branch with my work on spdx via scripts (there are
>> applications, but our use-case
>> is simple enough to do it with pipes for now).
>>
>> Odd results upon f
Yep works (of course it does what did you expect? ;p)
Took some time, though.
> On 25. Jan 2019, at 20:43, Catonano wrote:
>
>
>
> Il giorno ven 25 gen 2019 alle ore 20:40 jah ha
> scritto:
> On 24/01/19 10:37, Catonano wrote:
> >
> >
> > URI is
> >
> > `gnunet://fs/chk/3A9167QCEEC7
I would advocate that we do not release before we have proper test
automation/CI in place again.
Too much code has changed.
> On 24. Jan 2019, at 14:21, Christian Grothoff wrote:
>
> On 1/24/19 12:46 PM, n...@n0.is wrote:
>> About one year ago we released the first release candidate for 0.11.
>
; their system.
>
> Let's discuss!
>
> Devan / dvn
>
>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> On 1/27/19 10:26 AM, Catonano wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Il giorno sab 26 gen 2019 alle ore 11:00 Schanzenbach, Martin
>>> mailto:mschanz
Hi,
> On 28. Jan 2019, at 00:45, Christian Grothoff wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
> On 1/28/19 12:28 AM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:
>> Hi dvn,
>>
>> I had a discussion wrt gitlab offlist with grothoff as well.
>> tl;dr I am also a proponent of gitlab in
> On 28. Jan 2019, at 12:17, n...@n0.is wrote:
>
> Schanzenbach, Martin transcribed 5.2K bytes:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> On 28. Jan 2019, at 00:45, Christian Grothoff
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Signed PGP part
>>> On 1/28/19 12:28 AM, Schanzen
Maybe this is useful in the context of a mantis migration:
https://github.com/nonplus/mantis2gitlab
> On 28. Jan 2019, at 13:40, Schanzenbach, Martin
> wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
>
>
>> On 28. Jan 2019, at 12:17, n...@n0.is wrote:
>>
>> Schanzenbach, M
Hi,
over the past few months that I have spent building and trying to
deploy/release GNUnet based software I was hit more than once by its
significant size and complexity.
What I mean by that is beautifully illustrated by what I call myself the
"GNUnet Spaghetti Monster": https://stage.gnunet.o
re obvious for developers, but people who are
> already hacking on the code are not the ones with usability issues.
See above. Users should be made to think in packages anyway.
Only devs should care about repos.
I agree with the docs, but my argument is that the docs will stay confusing if
7;ve been
> getting over the years (and from trying to get students to install
> stuff). Fewer steps == better. Splitting up the sources may _seem_ to
> make the structure more obvious for developers, but people who are
> already hacking on the code are not the ones with usability issues.
I think I encountered this error on macos today. It doesn't even build because
of a faulty build definition of a transport plugin.
Try 395be9a8fb85d172dcbb06826aed8b5b29ceeac2
BR
> On 1. Feb 2019, at 18:41, t3sserakt wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
> Hello *,
>
> I have a lot of these error messag
Yes, I do not think this is a good idea at all and is contrary to the initial
motivation of this thread.
We already agree the from a user perspective, the packages (.deb/.rpm et al)
should ideally be split into
the respective services/applications and, of course, also Gtk+. For sane
dependency
while I actually
think they have VALID arguments in doing so, GNUnet does not.
> On 8. Feb 2019, at 15:00, Schanzenbach, Martin
> wrote:
>
> Yes, I do not think this is a good idea at all and is contrary to the initial
> motivation of this thread.
>
> We already
; repo again.
BR
> On 8. Feb 2019, at 15:53, t3sserakt wrote:
>
> Hey *,
>
> I also think it is better to have several repos. I can not tell how to split
> up the gnunet.git repo, but we should not merge gnunet-gtk.git into
> gnunet.git.
>
> cheers
>
> t3sse
gt; features are usually sufficiently orthogonal.
>
>
> Anyway, I should get back to actual coding and cleaning, maybe we should
> resume this discussion at the GNUnet Hacker Meeting? At least I suspect
> that might be more productive and I don't see any urgency here.
Yes, t
I have some inline comments as well below, but let us bring this discussion
down to a more practical consensus maybe.
I think we are arguing too much in the extremes and that is not helpful. I am
not saying we should compartmentalise
GNUnet into the tiniest possible components.
It's just that I t
> On 9. Feb 2019, at 17:13, Christian Grothoff wrote:
>
> On 2/9/19 5:04 PM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:
>> I have some inline comments as well below, but let us bring this discussion
>> down to a more practical consensus maybe.
>> I think we are arguing too much
ot
basic functions such a platform needs (or devs need to build applications).
GNUnet can become an umbrella project as well if we can agree on that. Under
this umbrella will exist: The core platform and any app/service that wishes to
share the umbrella project resources (so atm all of them).
Hi,
I think you need to go here: https://gnunet.org/bugs/view_all_bug_page.php
And then select category "webpage". Then click "Apply filter"
BR
> On 10. Feb 2019, at 08:11, Catonano wrote:
>
> I don't remember how to search for tickets marked with "website"
> I don't find a "search" field
> __
The Gtk ui is in a separate repository: https://gnunet.org/git/gnunet-gtk.git
> On 10. Feb 2019, at 07:45, Catonano wrote:
>
> reading about gns zones, I see the user chapter of the handbook mentions
> gnunet-gtk for creating a zone
>
> There are several commands in my path starting with gnune
> On 9. Feb 2019, at 22:33, n...@n0.is wrote:
>
> Schanzenbach, Martin transcribed 9.8K bytes:
>>
>>
>>> On 9. Feb 2019, at 20:32, Amirouche Boubekki
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think splitting the codebase will be a pain for gnunet.
>&
gnunet-leftpad anyone?
>>
>> c) Now, there is GNOME. GNOME is famous for its bazaar model of
>> development and also famous for the adoption of meson (maybe even its
>> inception) or its previous incarnation jhbuild. Anyway, even if GNOME
>> and GNU (which is also
The gnunet-gtk are and have always been a mess.
But let me try:
do you have gtk+-3.0-dev installed? (next up will probably be glade2 or sth)
> On 10. Feb 2019, at 09:21, Catonano wrote:
>
>
>
> Il giorno dom 10 feb 2019 alle ore 08:36 Schanzenbach, Martin
> ha scritto:
&g
smaller and do not contain functionality that
reclaim does not need, but this does not seem to have consensus so I have no
solution for this atm.
BR
> On 10. Feb 2019, at 09:25, Schanzenbach, Martin
> wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
>
>
>> On 10. Feb 2019, at 08:
https://packages.ubuntu.com/bionic/libgtk-3-dev ?
> On 10. Feb 2019, at 09:54, Catonano wrote:
>
>
>
> Il giorno dom 10 feb 2019 alle ore 09:52 Catonano ha
> scritto:
>
>
> Il giorno dom 10 feb 2019 alle ore 09:27 Schanzenbach, Martin
> ha scritto:
> T
> On 10. Feb 2019, at 10:36, Florian Dold wrote:
>
> 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
/10/19 10:50 AM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:
>> That is also the point. They should not care. Do you really think
>> Gtk+ devs care if they break API/ABI and gnunet-gtk fails to build?
>
> Yes, they do, and they should.
>
>
>
>
signature.as
> On 10. Feb 2019, at 11:14, Christian Grothoff wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
> On 2/10/19 10:06 AM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:
>> Maybe let me wrap this up for now because I do not see a point in arguing
>> further and there does not seem to be consensus:
>>
> On 10. Feb 2019, at 11:59, Schanzenbach, Martin
> wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
>
>
>> On 10. Feb 2019, at 11:14, Christian Grothoff wrote:
>>
>> Signed PGP part
>> On 2/10/19 10:06 AM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:
>>> Maybe let me w
> On 10. Feb 2019, at 13:56, Christian Grothoff wrote:
>
> On 2/10/19 11:59 AM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:
>>> --disable-FEATURE flats for configure where then src/Makefile.am simply
>>> doesn't enter certain subdirectories would certainly have my approval
I propose we just add a couple of configure switches, you know --build-deb (if
course one for each deb-based distro), --build-rpm etc... you know, to "reduce"
complexity.
Of course, in addition to the --disable-gtk/--disable- switches
which all default to "false" and also build optionally only i
> On 10. Feb 2019, at 22:28, Christian Grothoff wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
> On 2/10/19 9:25 PM, Hartmut Goebel wrote:
>> Am 10.02.19 um 17:43 schrieb Christian Grothoff:
>>
>> IMHO gnunet should be split into repos like this:
>>
>> - framework ("core")
>
> Should framework include the gnune
14:34, Christian Grothoff wrote:
>
> On 2/11/19 8:40 AM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:
>>> Then please explain how you want to slice the dependencies on the 3
>>> (possibly more in future, MariaDB says hello) databases and the Gtk+
>>> logic. Note that each of these m
s true. But it is not my main argument that build times are too long.
My argument is that build time is long, and for my service (reclaim) it is not
necessary at all to build everything when I fix a bug (locally that does not
affect me, but it does affect the CI).
>
> On 2/11/19 4:34 PM, Schanze
> On 11. Feb 2019, at 19:26, Christian Grothoff wrote:
>
> On 2/11/19 6:47 PM, Christian Grothoff wrote:
>> Am I missing an argument here?
>
> Let me answer my own question (cooking is great...).
>
> Actually, one good way I could see separating things is by
> responsibility boundary. I don't
You can easily see the roadmap and the schedule here:
https://bugs.gnunet.org/roadmap_page.php
It is scheduled for end of February.
Which means, next week unless we find critical bugs in the next few days
testing.
Bugs I am currently still working on are
https://bugs.gnunet.org/view.php?id=557
Hi,
a quick look into the bug (not a CADET expert) makes me questions the proposed
behaviour:
"Proposal how to change that behavior:
We will not drop the oldest message in the queue, but we send as much messages
from the queue as we have messages with consecutive MIDs. After that the queue
is
ption.
> On 24. Feb 2019, at 21:50, Schanzenbach, Martin
> wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
> Hi,
>
> a quick look into the bug (not a CADET expert) makes me questions the
> proposed behaviour:
>
> "Proposal how to change that behavior:
>
> We will
>
> That said, I do remember that that entire unreliable messaging was never
> properly tested...
>
> On 2/24/19 9:50 PM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> a quick look into the bug (not a CADET expert) makes me questions the
>> proposed behaviour:
>
Ah the DLL is sorted by message ID. Well. Then eviction in this order does not
make sense, I guess ;)
> On 24. Feb 2019, at 22:02, Schanzenbach, Martin
> wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
> As far as I can see, the head element of a DLL is removed.
> Unless elements are inserted at
t wrote:
>
> Hey Martin,
>
> my proposal will not deliver messages out of order.
>
> It just will not wait for a message to appear and drop another message
> we already received instead.
>
> On 24.02.19 21:50, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> a
:/ seems like --enable-experimental FTBFS
> On 28. Feb 2019, at 13:53, Daniel Golle wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 12:39:12PM +0100, Christian Grothoff wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> We are pleased to announce the release of GNUnet 0.11.0.
>>
>> This is a major release after about five years of
I fixed in in HEAD, but we will have to wait for 0.11.1 in a few weeks for it
to land to land.
Since it is experimental, it's not the end of the world, but annoying.
@grothoff: Did you already branch the 0.11.x?
> On 28. Feb 2019, at 14:14, Schanzenbach, Martin
> wrote:
>
>
2/28/19 2:21 PM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:
>> I fixed in in HEAD, but we will have to wait for 0.11.1 in a few weeks for
>> it to land to land.
>> Since it is experimental, it's not the end of the world, but annoying.
>>
>> @grothoff: Did you already branch th
I wish we had gitlab and a pull request mechanism... ;)
> On 3. Mar 2019, at 11:03, Hartmut Goebel wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I just pushed the branch "gnunt-qt-c".
>
> Please review and give feedback. And somebody is asked to implement
> c-style error handling (or guide me): The "processor" must be c
Hi,
thank you for the contribution!
A few points:
1.
The first thing you should do it use GNUNET_PROGRAM*.
Please look at the main of, for example, gnunet-ecc.c.
This is how argument parsing and program invocation in gnunet is done.
This also applies for gnunet-qr.
2. Instead of calling the gnun
Hi,
> On 7. Mar 2019, at 15:28, n...@n0.is wrote:
>
> I just learned about a couple more specific systemd settings.
> The ones I think which could be useful to extend our systemd
> example service with are below.
>
>> PrivateTmp:
>> Use private /tmp and /var/tmp folders inside a new file system
I would assume this also applies to gns proxy and dns2gns?
> On 9. Mar 2019, at 15:32, Christian Grothoff wrote:
>
> I think that's OK, as long as the REST endpoints only bind to localhost
> by default. So IMO the real bug here is that we do not do that right now.
>
> Martin: could you add a bi
Fixed
> On 9. Mar 2019, at 15:44, Christian Grothoff wrote:
>
> Yeah, we should change those as well.
>
> On 3/9/19 3:36 PM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:
>> I would assume this also applies to gns proxy and dns2gns?
>>
>>> On 9. Mar 2019, at 15:32, Christi
Hi!
> On 13. Mar 2019, at 18:25, Hartmut Goebel
> wrote:
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> Am 03.03.19 um 11:33 schrieb Schanzenbach, Martin:
>> The first thing you should do it use GNUNET_PROGRAM*.
> I followed this advice, adding options --verbose, -s/--silent and
> -d/-
style ;)
BR
> On 13. Mar 2019, at 19:11, Schanzenbach, Martin
> wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
> Hi!
>
>> On 13. Mar 2019, at 18:25, Hartmut Goebel
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> Am 03.03.19 um 11:33 schrieb Schanzenbach, Martin:
>>
I don't like changing somebody else's lines just for intendation because it
messes with git blame.
So I think it is better to hold people to the coding style.
BR
> On 13. Mar 2019, at 20:01, n...@n0.is wrote:
>
> Schanzenbach, Martin transcribed 4.9K bytes:
>> In t
t; On 3/13/19 9:03 PM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:
>> I don't like changing somebody else's lines just for intendation because it
>> messes with git blame.
>> So I think it is better to hold people to the coding style.
>
>
>
> On 14. Mar 2019, at 09:10, Hartmut Goebel
> wrote:
>
> Am 13.03.19 um 19:16 schrieb Schanzenbach, Martin:
>> In the end, please also check https://docs.gnunet.org/#Coding-style and
>> adjust your editor to it.
>> Currently, the file has mixed spaces and tabs
> On 15. Mar 2019, at 09:45, Hartmut Goebel
> wrote:
>
>
> Am 15.03.19 um 09:19 schrieb Christian Grothoff:
>> Force pushes are never allowed, you must always rebase.
>
> Rebase also requiers a force push since the branch is not continuing the
> prior history.
>
> I'm used to provide a seri
No it was not.
I am pretty sure that instead of calling gnunet-uri as a binary from a binary
is pretty nonsensical.
Instead, gnunet-qr should just do what gnunet-uri does with the uri.
If we need to share code between them, fine, then refactor. But imitating
python behavior here is not good style
e the branches they were still using or
> working on, and old stuff was removed
>
> branches were code reviewed before merging them to "next", not unlike
> pull requests on github. only release-maintainers could push to master,
> while next was more open, but never allowed for
> On 15. Mar 2019, at 22:51, Christian Grothoff wrote:
>
> On 3/15/19 4:06 PM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:
>> No it was not.
>> I am pretty sure that instead of calling gnunet-uri as a binary from a
>> binary is pretty nonsensical.
>
> Why? I see nothing wr
1 - 100 of 340 matches
Mail list logo
