nodemaster wrote:IMHO we should have at least three persons who are able to release new versions. Perhaps we should as well ask doublec and/or khal? If no one is against I'm willing to take this challenge, but I'd also want to make sure, that I'll only make use of the rights if there is imminent danger for the blockchain, we need an emergency release and vinced is not available for whatever reason. During normal development process vinced should be the only one who is pulling into his repo.cosurgi wrote:I suggest nodemastervinced wrote: If a trusted person steps forward I can add them to the github repository as commiter.
We should develop and agree on a process for emergency releases like:
1. Emergency fix is done on fork by whoever provide it
2. After testing it is pulled to vinceds repo
3. Version is advanced
4. Announcement is made on Forum. PGP signed by at least 2 out of n persons who can commit to the repo.
5. Binaries are created and made available on the main page.
I'm just working on automatic binary creation for linux and packaging for debian. Perhaps someone is able to do this for windows and Mac OS X? It's really a good idea to tighten the process of doing emergency releases. This is one of the weaknesses we identified during the 51% attack and I think we should address this. What do you think?
We could also create an "official" namecoin tree that is dedicated to releases & fix (bitcoin works like that with bitcoin/bitcoin and each user has his forked tree) ?
=> https://github.com/namecoin/namecoin
We then add some trusted people to be able to commit, merge pull requests from forked repositories, etc.
I think it would allow people to be sure to always have a stable release on the official tree, avoid giving access to a "personal" tree to other people.
What do you think ?