[OpenID board] Repository place (was: Re: svn access)
n-sakimura at nri.co.jp
Mon Dec 28 06:40:41 UTC 2009
Well, the users are specs@ but the board has an oversight responsibility
to avoid IPR contamination.
Thus, where the repositories are, and how they are managed are of
interest and responsibility of the board.
As to the location of the WG repositories are concerned, if we are
allowed to use ones that the WG likes, we probably need to establish a
1) Board approval on the location and the management method of the
2) Advertise it to the internet (A link from WG main page should be good
It should not be complicated, but the mechanism should be well defined
(2009/12/28 15:04), David Recordon wrote:
> Agreed with Will. (And this is an issue for specs@, not board at .)
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Will Norris <will at willnorris.com
> <mailto:will at willnorris.com>> wrote:
> I'm not sure that it needs to be either/or. We have the 'openid'
> account secured on github, bitbucket, and google code. Let
> individual working groups use whichever version control system
> they are most comfortable with. Of course the final deliverables
> that come out of any working group should be in common location
> (such as http://openid.net/developers/specs/), but that doesn't
> necessarily mean that they all need to use the same technology to
> develop them.
> On Dec 26, 2009, at 6:57 PM, Nat Sakimura wrote:
> > David and Allen,
> > I suppose we should ask the wider community, so I am including
> > in the distribution list.
> > For those of you who are new to this topic, we have been
> > "experimenting/trying a move to" github from svn. However, after
> > having used it for sometime, I have started to find some
> problems with
> > github and it now looks to me that bitbucket.org
> <http://bitbucket.org> is a better option
> > than github.
> > The reasons are:
> > 1. It uses OpenID for web interface login.
> > 2. It allows the use of https logins through proxies so it can be
> > accessed through corporate firewalls etc. as well. (It is extremely
> > difficult to do this for github -- it can be done, but it
> probably is
> > beyond many people because you need to build a tunnel through the
> > proxy.)
> > 3. It allows CNAMEs when paid US$5 a month, so that it could be
> > accessed as openid.net <http://openid.net>., e.g.,
> http://specs.openid.net/ax/ ->
> > http://bitbucket.org/openid/ax/ This is kind of vanity thing, but is
> > important to establish the "authenticity" of the repository to the
> > public.
> > For our use, I have secured account "openid" at bitbucket.
> > What would you think?
> > =nat
> > On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Nat <sakimura at gmail.com
> <mailto:sakimura at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >> One problem that I found about github is that it is very
> difficult to
> >> configure it to work with corporate proxies. We started to use
> github for
> >> translation project as well, but several members got stack
> there. Do you
> >> know of a work around?
> >> =nat at Tokyo via iPhone
> board mailing list
> board at lists.openid.net <mailto:board at lists.openid.net>
> board mailing list
> board at lists.openid.net
Nat Sakimura (n-sakimura at nri.co.jp)
Nomura Research Institute, Ltd.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the board