log☇︎
19900+ entries in 0.047s
mod6 scrolls back
mod6: they said ...
mod6: ascii_field: so does `gpg --decrypt` work for that as danielpbarron & jurov said?
mod6: <+mircea_popescu> http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=05-08-2015#1225956 << maybe i've nbot given consideration enough time, but it seems to me that if something can not be made into a text file, that something can't be part of a computer program. the making/demaking necessarily can be automated. << i didn't understand that this problem could be side-stepped with gpg --decrypt ☝︎
mod6: this was like in '06... it still worked. *shrug*
mod6: i had a neighbor once who showed me his amiga. never stopped raving about it.
mod6 slaps shinohai with a large unix manual
mod6: if NOT, if you're running i686 or i386, replace auto.sh with: http://thebitcoin.foundation/ml/btc-dev/2015-March/000071.html
mod6: please ensure that you are running x86_64 by doing `uname -a`
mod6: if anyone else wants to try here are the steps: http://dpaste.com/1Q96E5N.txt
mod6: thanks shinohai
mod6: w00t
mod6: shinohai: excellent work! thank you. these are the first steps in a series of similar things needed.
mod6: <+ascii_field> mod6: i'm willing to re-create all of mine << ok no rush here. lemme just re-read and think about all of these things for a bit.
mod6: i gotta think about it a bit
mod6: i kinda like what i heard about that earlier.
mod6: i need to re-read all of the logs from today and have a nice long "think" about it.
mod6: so everyone else from the beginning of time (october 24th 2014) must resign all patches?
mod6: ?
mod6: how do we reconsile this with the patches already created/applied
mod6: ok forget that im still confused for a moment because im dumb, and maybe I'll just get it in a few minutes...
mod6: it does now, or it will because we must now reinvent diff/patch ?
mod6: ok. will diff take that and run it and ignore that first line with the hash?
mod6: (the unchanged original file)
mod6: ok and that sha512 hash is of the file /before/ the changes were made resulting in the patch?
mod6 looks
mod6: I think I need to see a concrete example of this - end to end. I just can't picutre it mentally.
mod6: so before I say "yup, that's it, that's the thing that gets us to where we want to be", i want to fully understand what I'm agreeing to use. ☟︎☟︎
mod6: <+jurov> mod6 please look at bigget picture, nto jsut to this one step << i think partly ... my general concern is my understanding of how this proposed system would work. this concern is based on the fact that when the current system was proposed, i had the oppertunity to speak out and put in my say in the matter, but I didn't understand it so I don't think I objected very much. and now look at where we are.
mod6: and if those proposed steps are easier/better than what we currently hvae.
mod6: i guess im just trying to picture in my mind how i would have to use, step by step, the proposed system every single day.
mod6: other than what I already talked about and that's not really better either.
mod6: good question. not sure that i have any useful answers here at this time.
mod6: i'd like to make something better, this is for sure. just whatever it is, i wanna know that it is better, not just sideways.
mod6: jurov: to me thats an extra step... is that what we're all prepared to live with?
mod6: s/tries to//
mod6: gnupg tries to escape lines that begin with a dash
mod6: as you can see clearsign mangles the text: - --- a/rotor.sh .... - -../dist/configure
mod6: anyway, the main point i wanted to bring up re: clearsigned patches into deedbot was this email: http://thebitcoin.foundation/ml/btc-dev/2015-July/000136.html
mod6: it still doesn't help me view a base64 encoded submission to the deedbot
mod6: and /patch.html imho should not draw off of just any submission, only signed submissions from ben, myself and the author.
mod6: it first must be signed.
mod6: how does anything get into /patch.html ?
mod6: punkman: <+mod6> <+ben_vulpes> there's always /patches.html... << sure if it's readable. <+mod6> what about for unsigned new submissions?
mod6: maybe not. lol.
mod6: are you guys following what I'm saying?
mod6: punkman: taking it back to the earlier premise.
mod6: could be scripted i suppose... but just sayin
mod6: and there are 75`000 people and 50 submissions per day?
mod6: what about for unsigned new submissions? ☟︎
mod6: <+ben_vulpes> there's always /patches.html... << sure if it's readable.
mod6: that's fine, but what if I just wanna look through the submitted patches in deedbot? i now have to do a bunch of extra gyrations to even see the text
mod6: "easy to read"
mod6: and i thought that was kinda one of the requirements.
mod6: see, we could uu encode stuff or gzip stuff or do any number of things, but then it's far less readable "as-is"
mod6: danielpbarron: we're not talking about encryed docs
mod6: i've been thinking alot about the ML issues that have been brought up lately. and lastnight I bascially came up with: Mailing list A: for all submissions testing or experimental or otherwise.. Mailing list B: for accepted, signed and released patches, in order. And jurov's /patch.html (or w/e its called) should draw from there.
mod6: ascii_field: im simply referring to the converstaion from this morning
mod6: will deedbot take 2 parameters, a non-signed .patch file and a detached signature and somehow colese them?
mod6: ascii_field has it
mod6: ^
mod6: trinque: i think it's awesome :]
mod6: now, it might be that I'm not exactly understanding what the proceedure for submitting to deed bot would be. but if clearsigned .patch files, that can not work. ☟︎☟︎
mod6: http://thebitcoin.foundation/ml/btc-dev/2015-July/000136.html
mod6: if our idea is to clearsign patches and then submit them to deedbot, i urge you all to review this email and consider why that doesn't work: ☟︎
mod6: however
mod6: i also like how it lines up the signatures to a specific hash horizontally
mod6: and I like the site, and the bitchin motif
mod6: so I've looked at deedbot.org
mod6: ;;later tell hanbot ping me when you get a chance plz. thx!
mod6: it does the same for me on multiple browsers too
mod6: !up ascii_field
mod6: !up ascii_field
mod6: <+ascii_field> http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=04-08-2015#1224297 << please see last night's log! (spoiler: jettison does't actually free mem..) << will review, thx. ☝︎
mod6: asciilifeform: thanks for your Mempool Jettison submission ☟︎☟︎
mod6: <+asciilifeform> mod6 et al: all 3 of my nodez are synced presently << good to know, thx for the update
mod6: gotcha.
mod6: i like the allure of this.
mod6: right.
mod6: yeah, i was trying to say this: <+decimation> you only really need to rebuild bitcoind if that's what you patched
mod6: i.e. I dont have to rebuild the buildroot & "universe" every time I want to add a patch, just rebuild 'stator'.
mod6: asciilifeform: ok, thanks. so noted.
mod6: no, not since i couldn't get it to build before. i'll try it again this coming week for sure.
mod6: much appreciated
mod6: shinohai: thanks!!
mod6: http://dpaste.com/1TMGCVA.txt
mod6: if someone with some spare time can validate my findings that would be great -- these are just the first two of a number of these that need to be discovered/defined
mod6: I've tested installing the iso's indicated on a VM and went through my own steps 2x (once for each OS)
mod6: All: I've put some steps together for installing ubuntu 10.04 & debian 6.0.10
mod6: <asciilifeform> interestingly, incitatus synced and stayed synced today << ahh ok, thanks for the heads up
mod6: Any other Linux OS Testers: Steps will be gathered soon and will be updating as that information becomes available.
mod6: Note To Ubuntu 10.04 Testers: I've added a list of install depedantcies to this email to help any build of this go more smoothly. GnuPG should be installed by default so you can check the sigs.
mod6: thanks again asciilifeform, much appreciated.
mod6: Sending out updated email to ML now.
mod6: http://thebitcoin.foundation/test-builds/v0.5.4/amd64/bitcoin-v0_5_4-TEST2.tar.gz && http://thebitcoin.foundation/test-builds/v0.5.4/amd64/bitcoin-v0_5_4-TEST2.tar.gz.sig
mod6: Thanks all for working lastnight to get the db locks issue resolved! I've got a new bitcoin-v0_5_4-TEST2 bundle created. Patch added was `asciilifeform_maxint_locks_corrected.patch'. Applies cleanly. All automated tests passed.
mod6 looks
mod6: <+asciilifeform> http://therealbitcoin.org/ml/btc-dev/2015-August/000139.html << thanks all for helping with this lastnight
mod6: yeah. the patch itself is mundged when sent like that because gnupg tries to escape hyphens; which is why "- ---" and "- -../dist/configure ..." happens.
mod6: ;;later tell hanbot check msg