[opam-devel] more committers needed ?

Anil Madhavapeddy anil at recoil.org
Wed Mar 30 12:21:36 BST 2016

On 30 Mar 2016, at 12:15, Hannes Mehnert <hannes at mehnert.org> wrote:
> uhm, this is very much into dreamland right now (since the first step,
> of signing integration isn't done yet)...

it's useful to figure out the workflow for people such that it'll actually get adoption...

> On 30/03/2016 13:03, Anil Madhavapeddy wrote:
>> That actually sounds like the perfect workflow for signing... if there was some way to sign it (perhaps keybase.io via JavaScript) without a CLI, it would be much more widely adopted.
> does this propose that you want people to store their private keys
> online on the internet (certainly password-protected)?  I'm uneasy with
> that (and would prefer to store the private keys on the people's
> laptops, rather than online).

not necessarily; the keybase model seems to support a pure JS workflow where the private keys are never "on the cloud" but on the local machine.  In practise, having a mode that lets people do a single-click-or-two sign will make the difference between having to whip out out a CLI (much like the "merge" button in GitHub greatly accelerates the common case of pull request handling). 

>>> On 30 Mar 2016, at 12:02, Louis Gesbert <louis.gesbert at ocamlpro.com> wrote:
>>> More simply, the mechanism could do all the work, and poll the package 
>>> maintainer for a signature (assuming he wouldn't sign without actually 
>>> checking ?) . Something like a mail with instructions and archive + cryptohash 
>>> to verify, then a command to run and it's done.
> this sounds good to me, a mail where the developer has to invoke some
> command-line utility locally to generate a signature, and resubmit this
> via mail (well, or git as a first step).

A CLI utility to sign is fine, but submitting it via yet another communication mechanism seems unnecessary.


More information about the opam-devel mailing list