technoweenie

14 ms·

91.
by technoweenie 14y ago
They're for GitHub use only.
92.
by technoweenie 14y ago
We have an early alpha program if you want to import your tickets to GitHub. We helped move Parrot (and a few others) over. Contact support@github.com.
93.
by technoweenie 14y ago
GitHub doesn't actually use Resque directly (well, except some rare cases). defunkt built RockQueue to be our internal queue interface while he migrate the app from DelayedJob to Resque. This looks like the same concept.
94.
by technoweenie 15y ago
You can sort by Submitted/Updated/Comments. Feel free to send feedback to support@github.com if this isn't what you're thinking of.
95.
by technoweenie 15y ago
And we're working on /so/ much more than new repo screens too :)
96.
by technoweenie 15y ago
This is closer to how we work at internally at GitHub. Everyone files pull requests for non trivial changes, and are responsible for merging and deploying them safely. Edit: This works because we all have push access of course. This chang
97.
by technoweenie 15y ago
That's definitely a change I'd bring up with the project first. I agree that having compiled code in there is bad, but it's typically not something a first time pull requester touches. Same goes for project files (Gemfiles, package.json,
98.
by technoweenie 15y ago
ZMQ is specifically content agnostic. It looks like zmqc is too. As zacharyvoase pointed out, you'd just pipe the output of messages to other tools that can handle JSON/MsgPack/Protobufs/whatever.
99.
by technoweenie 15y ago
GitHub detects the presence of README files by file name. It'd be pretty easy to do that for LICENSE files too of course. Look for LICENSE, MIT-LICENSE, etc. The trick is actually identifying what type of license it is. Pop quiz: What lic
100.
by technoweenie 15y ago
I hacked up a Faraday (my ruby HTTP client) plugin that uses ZeroMQ: https://github.com/technoweenie/faraday-zeromq . I honestly don't know if it's worth it though. It's easy enough to write your own ZeroMQ stuff. Example: https://githu
101.
by technoweenie 15y ago
Another clarification: He wasn't making noises for a long time with _GitHub_ and being ignored. His support responses were replied to nearly immediately (except where the timezone differences came into play). We take security reports very
102.
by technoweenie 15y ago
For anyone that still cares, this has been tweaked. If you attempt to merge a pull request that has changed since you loaded the page, it'll require you to re-review the pull request.
103.
by technoweenie 15y ago
GitHub pull requests are tracked by a base and a head commit. Usually, base is master, and head is some feature branch. This allows the pull request on GitHub to pull in new changes to the commit as a discussion forms around it. So in tha
104.
by technoweenie 15y ago
We sent someone back in time to make this change. Somewhere there's an alternate universe with a secure GitHub by default. Thanks!
105.
by technoweenie 15y ago
This isn't the only thing we're doing. Most of the work is going on behind the scenes though.
106.
by technoweenie 15y ago
We have stats on this from other sources, actually. But it did provide some interesting graphs this morning :)
107.
by technoweenie 15y ago
There's no way to delete keys on another account. The bug only let someone move their key to another account.
108.
by technoweenie 15y ago
It was a mass assignment vulnerability in our code.
109.
by technoweenie 15y ago
Git has no real way to track that, only commits. We do track it internally, but AFAIK it's not exposed except through post-receive hooks.
110.
by technoweenie 15y ago
It was a temporary suspension while we investigated the scope of the damage. There was some other weird activity on his account that he wasn't up front about.
111.
by technoweenie 15y ago
We didn't have the luxury of time. We were going back and forth with him over the weekend, and he pushed the commit 2 days after the original report. I admit, I was having some issues understanding his vague reports and went down a differ
112.
by technoweenie 15y ago
He wasn't upfront about everything what he was doing, so we had to investigate.
113.
by technoweenie 15y ago
It's a fake.
114.
by technoweenie 15y ago
We use this (posted by @dhh) https://gist.github.com/1975644 in some spots, or simply just Hash#slice. We have some other thoughts on making params access more explicit. The problem with explicit patterns is they can get left out if a d
115.
by technoweenie 15y ago
This is true. We actually don't use mass assignment that often. He happened to catch 2 our of 3 spots that still used it. Everywhere else is explicit about what to accept.
116.
by technoweenie 15y ago
Yup.
117.
by technoweenie 15y ago
We saw some weird stuff on the account that he wasn't upfront about. Though, our first priority was clearing the bug up.
118.
by technoweenie 15y ago
We suspended it after fixing the bug to make sure he didn't retain access to something he shouldn't. We rarely do this, but he wasn't upfront with everything he was doing on the site like people that disclose vulnerabilities responsibly.
119.
by technoweenie 15y ago
https://github.com/blog/1068-public-key-security-vulnerabili...
120.
by technoweenie 15y ago
We use Unicorn, which provides a Rack handler for Rails 2.2 apps. I just mounted the an API router app before the Rails handler in our config.ru. The API router app is just a big regex that looks for API related urls, or passes through to

More ›