devblog
This commit is contained in:
parent
5600aee90b
commit
1d40d75f40
1 changed files with 37 additions and 0 deletions
37
doc/devblog/day_19__moving_on.mdwn
Normal file
37
doc/devblog/day_19__moving_on.mdwn
Normal file
|
@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
|
|||
Finished moving the Android autobuilder over to the new clean build
|
||||
environment. Tested the Android app, and it still works. Whew!
|
||||
|
||||
There's a small chance that the issue with the Android app not working on
|
||||
Android 4.3 has been fixed by this rebuild. I doubt it, but perhaps someone
|
||||
can download the daily build and give it another try..
|
||||
|
||||
----
|
||||
|
||||
I have 7 days left in which I'd like to get remote gcrypt repositories
|
||||
working in the assistant. I think that should be fairly easy, but a
|
||||
prerequisite for it is making git-annex-shell support being run on a gcrypt
|
||||
repository. That's needed so that the assistant's normal locked down ssh
|
||||
key setup can also be used for gcrypt repositories.
|
||||
|
||||
At the same time, not all gcrypt endpoints will have git-annex-shell
|
||||
installed, and it *seems* to make sense to leave in the existing support
|
||||
for running raw rsync and git push commands against such a repository. So
|
||||
that's going to add some complication.
|
||||
|
||||
It will also complicate git-annex-shell to support gcrypt repos. Basically,
|
||||
everything it does in git-annex repos will need to be reimplemented in
|
||||
gcrypt repositories. Generally in a more simple form; for example it
|
||||
doesn't need to (and can't) update location logs in a gcrypt repo.
|
||||
|
||||
----
|
||||
|
||||
I also need to find a good UI to present the three available choices
|
||||
(unencrypted git, encrypted git, encrypted rsync) when setting up a repo
|
||||
on a ssh server. I don't want to just remove the encrypted rsync option,
|
||||
because it's useful when using xmpp to sync the git repo, and is simpler to
|
||||
set up since it uses shared encryption rather than gpg public keys.
|
||||
|
||||
My current thought is to offer just 2 choices, encrypted and non-encrypted.
|
||||
If they choose encrypted, offer a choice of shared encryption or encrypting
|
||||
to a specific key. I think I can word this so it's pretty clear what the
|
||||
tradeoffs are.
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue