Libcoin repo

[indolering]

As far as I can tell, the namecoin/libcoin repo is dead. AFAIK, Domob has been making changes against his tree and then submitting patches directly to the main Libcoin branch. He has also reported having trouble with upstream changes breaking items within Libcoin proper.

This is really bad because when combined with namecoin/namecoin the core project looks stalled out even though we have been making steady progress on multiple fronts.

I think we should maintain a Namecoin specific Libcoin branch which we funnel our collective changes through as well as protect us from breaking changes made upstream. Although this adds some overhead control of the repo makes it easier for us to coordinate among our volunteers, add our own documention, and generally get things done.

We've waited several months for a Libcoin repo to play with and I think it's time.

[biolizard89]

As far as I can tell, the namecoin/libcoin repo is dead. AFAIK, Domob has been making changes against his tree and then submitting patches directly to the main Libcoin branch. He has also reported having trouble with upstream changes breaking items within Libcoin proper.

This is really bad because when combined with namecoin/namecoin the core project looks stalled out even though we have been making steady progress on multiple fronts.

I think we should maintain a Namecoin specific Libcoin branch which we funnel our collective changes through as well as protect us from breaking changes made upstream. Although this adds some overhead control of the repo makes it easier for us to coordinate among our volunteers, add our own documention, and generally get things done.

We've waited several months for a Libcoin repo to play with and I think it's time.

I have no objection to maintaining a fork of libcoin as long as we still try to get things merged upstream. Maybe domob can comment on this?

[domob]

I'm also fine with having namecoin/libcoin. Actually, I pushed to that repo from time to time when I found a particular version of libcoin to be "working" (with very limited testing, though). So this is probably basically what indo asked about. I don't want to always push changes back going through namecoin/libcoin, though, because I think that's just overkill. Our changes aren't actually that big, and Michael has been merging them to upstream just fine so far. I think it is fine to just provide namecoin/libcoin as a "somewhat" release branch where only revisions are pushed that seems to work, though.

[jonasbits]

What about using namecoin/libcoin to publish a branch of the testnet code currently needing more attention?!

[indolering]

I'm also fine with having namecoin/libcoin. Actually, I pushed to that repo from time to time when I found a particular version of libcoin to be "working" (with very limited testing, though). So this is probably basically what indo asked about. I don't want to always push changes back going through namecoin/libcoin, though, because I think that's just overkill. Our changes aren't actually that big, and Michael has been merging them to upstream just fine so far. I think it is fine to just provide namecoin/libcoin as a "somewhat" release branch where only revisions are pushed that seems to work, though.

Right, Jeremy's got a TravisCI testing setup ready to go but we need to start maintaining that repo before we can do release engineering on it.

[signup292]

.

[jonasbits]

I have a pull request of namecoin-testnet-beta running on Travis, hope it will pass.