git-secret VS fish-shell

I've happily been using git-secret (https://sobolevn.me/git-secret/) for encrypting non-critical (i.e. non-production) secrets for a while now. It sounds like Gittuf will do a lot more than git-secret, but for the use case of encrypted files specifically, is there a significant different about with the approach that Gittuf has taken?

Secrets inside the repo. All the credentials, ssh keys, VPN configs can be stored directly in the repo with support of the git secret. gpg key is optional: config works fine if it is not provided and secrets are not decrypted.

You might notice that some of the environmental variables have funky values that look more like template placeholders. For example "SESSION_STORAGE_SECRET=${SESSION_STORAGE_SECRET}". That's because there's a .env file that contains those (you can see it in the root of the GitHub repository page. As a good practice I try to isolate anything that needs to be secret right off the top. So even though this is a development setup and would need work to turn it into a something suitable for production let's try to start off right not doing the wrong thing by hardcoding all our secrets into various files. At least now there's just one file to secure. And later on if you move to something really secure like Hashicorp's Vault product, or even something open source like git secret you won't have to hunt all over the place for the secrets to keep. Lets now look at the rest of the Catalyst application setup:

Checkout git-secret. https://git-secret.io/

There‘s plugins like https://github.com/AGWA/git-crypt or https://git-secret.io that you can use to encrypt the files for yourself, so that they are available on multiple machines to you

If you really want to have private repositories in GitHub, you will need to set up something like https://git-secret.io on top of git.

If you want a low config solution and not scared of gpg, https://git-secret.io/

Hey guys, so I'm using git-secret as of now. Just stumbled across Mozilla SOPS today and finding it interesting. Which one you guys recommend and why? Advantages and disadvantages of each? I think SOPS is more robust and stable since it is being maintained by a large organization? Please correct me if I'm wrong. Help is appreciated.

Reminds of the note at the bottom of Fish's releases. It's there because the build system cannot determine the current version for some reason. Hopefully that will go away now that they have switched to a different language / build system. The custom tarball is used by Arch Linux at the very least.

https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/releases/tag/3.7.1

https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/issues/7772#issueco...

https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/fi...

A recent practical example of the former: the fish shell re-wrote incrementally from C++ to Rust, and is almost finished https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/discussions/10123

An example of the latter: c2rust, which is a work in progress but is very impressive https://github.com/immunant/c2rust

It currently translates into unsafe Rust, but the strategy is to separate the "compile C to unsafe Rust" steps and the "compile unsafe Rust to safe Rust" steps. As I see it, as it makes the overall task simpler, allows for more user freedom, and makes the latter potentially useful even for non-transpiled code. https://immunant.com/blog/2023/03/lifting/

And this discussion from November has an update on the progress: https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/discussions/10123

We're using bash as our terminal shell for now (it is standard in many distros) but it is not the only one out there. If you want to test out zsh, fish or oh-my-zsh, you will see that there are a few differences and the features are usually the main differentiator. Try that, poke around.

They have a variety of reasons to move to rust, as outlined in their original rust discussion[1]. Mostly around finding other contributors, and adding an async/parallel mode they're comfortable with.

[1] https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/pull/9512