Currently 11/35 have enabled 2FA

On Friday, 12 August 2016 at 08:10:15 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> Currently 11/35 have enabled 2FA

Have you 5 hidden members ?

On 8/12/16 10:53 AM, mùsdl wrote:
> On Friday, 12 August 2016 at 08:10:15 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> Currently 11/35 have enabled 2FA
>
> Have you 5 hidden members ?

Members have the option of publicly exposing their membership.

-Steve

On Wednesday, 10 August 2016 at 04:20:51 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12259176
>
> Apparently github users are increasingly being targeted.

BTW what about this https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/4z2nue/dear_programmer_dont_shorten_your_fingerprint/
I'm not familiar with pgp, but was surprised to see short identifiers in dlang keyring. Anything 32 bit can't possibly have anything secure about it?

On Friday, 12 August 2016 at 08:10:15 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> Currently 11/35 have enabled 2FA

FWIW GitHub added a nice feature to track down members without 2FA more easily.
One can now filter members with `two-factor:disabled` (or select this via the new UI Filter).

On 08/11/2016 10:56 AM, Kagamin wrote:
> On Thursday, 11 August 2016 at 13:35:08 UTC, qznc wrote:
>> The code is pretty safe thanks to git. The comments get lost.
>
> Irony. Is git still a DVCS? If you lose the central repo, you just lose.

The one big thing that always annoyed me about github is that nearly all the features it adds on top of git *lack* all the benefit of using git in the first place (ex: decentralization and ability to self-host, git's famed speed, etc.)

On 08/11/2016 05:25 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 8/11/2016 7:34 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> so no actual code would be lost.
>
> Github dlang is our critical infrastructure, we should treat it
> accordingly. I agree we wouldn't lose the code history, but would lose
> just about everything else. It would take us days, maybe weeks, to get
> things set up again.
>
> Why risk it?

That right there is why gitlab is better. I realize it's too late now, but I kinda wish we had standardized on that instead of github. Unlike gitlab, github takes all the philosophy, purpose, goals and values of git (the very tool it's built for) and throws them straight out the window, replacing them with a traditional, very non-git-like MS/Facebook-style single-point-of-failure walled garden.

On 2016-08-26 17:11, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

> That right there is why gitlab is better. I realize it's too late now,
> but I kinda wish we had standardized on that instead of github. Unlike
> gitlab, github takes all the philosophy, purpose, goals and values of
> git (the very tool it's built for) and throws them straight out the
> window, replacing them with a traditional, very non-git-like
> MS/Facebook-style single-point-of-failure walled garden.

How is GitLab any different?

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Friday, 26 August 2016 at 16:54:14 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> How is GitLab any different?

at least it's engine is opensourced, and it's employers doesn't make public racists and chauvinist statements.

employees, lol.