pull down to refresh

110 sats \ 11 replies \ @optimism 6 May \ parent \ on: Stacker Saloon

It's called git. It's awesome. git-format-patch is your friend. Compliments of Linus.

write
compose
70 sats \ 10 replies \ @ek 6 May

With "offline-first version of GitHub", I meant that I can create GitHub review comments offline, so the review is ready to be submitted when GitHub is back online.

But git-format-patch might still be useful, thanks! I am currently manually keeping track of what I want to comment on which lines in a text file:

R18-19:

nit: I found "base weight" confusing. bolt03 doesn't mention "base weight", only "base fee", which [doesn't seem to be related to "without HTLCs" but "trimmed HTLCs"](https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/444805d12ab98c30006173bb190cd9d6fce9e405/03-transactions.md?plain=1#L517-L524). I think with "base" you mean "without HTLCs"? So I suggest this change:

```diff
-/// Base weight of a non-anchor commitment transaction without HTLCs.
-const COMMITMENT_WEIGHT_NON_ANCHOR: u64 = 724;
+/// Weight of a non-anchor commitment transaction without HTLCs.
+const BASE_COMMITMENT_WEIGHT_NON_ANCHOR: u64 = 724;

-/// Base weight of an anchor commitment transaction without HTLCs.
-const COMMITMENT_WEIGHT_ANCHOR: u64 = 1124;
+/// Weight of an anchor commitment transaction without HTLCs.
+const BASE_COMMITMENT_WEIGHT_ANCHOR: u64 = 1124;
```

---

R24-26:

* could use `OPTION_ANCHORS_BITS` like in #56
reply
1 sat \ 9 replies \ @optimism 6 May
echo "To: ${RECIPIENT}" > mail_header.txt 
echo "From: ek <ek@ek.name>" >> mail_header.txt
echo "Subject: review" >> mail_header.txt
echo "" >> mail_header.txt

cat mail_header.txt my_finding.txt | sendmail -t

This one also with compliments of Linus ❤️

reply
70 sats \ 8 replies \ @ek 6 May

I'm not sure if you're not understanding my problem, or if you're telling me I shouldn't use GitHub.

reply
42 sats \ 7 replies \ @optimism 6 May

Not telling you what you should or shouldn't do, just pointing out that depending on a centralized piece of Microsoft software is maybe not necessary in an age where you could use anything you want for communications. Which is rather funny because we used to say the same in the 90s.

Maybe this time we will evolve tho

reply
70 sats \ 6 replies \ @ek 6 May

To start with, your suggested solution should include the entire world in CC

reply
101 sats \ 5 replies \ @optimism 6 May

Mailing list?

PS: kind of dramatically self-important to seek the whole world as audience. Did you cure death?

reply
70 sats \ 4 replies \ @ek 6 May

Does this mailing list send all previously sent emails to new subscribers?

reply
25 sats \ 3 replies \ @optimism 6 May

I'm sure Claude can code you that feature in 2 minutes, but it sounds like a bit of an anti-feature. It's not really needed either - anyone can just serve an archive. Don't need centralization, don't need push on things that can be pulled.

Sure, Github is nice. Until it bans you. Or worse. Until it bans/suspends the author of the PR you just spent some hours on and the PR magically disappears, including your work. Or until it goes down or defunct.

If you disagree that GH is a weak link, fine. We can differ in opinions about that. All I'm saying is: it's just some software, and there can be other software. In 2026, we're only locked to those systems we choose to be locked to or that we don't care enough about to just spend some effort on to free ourselves of. This may change with the friction we experience from such software.

view all 3 replies