Our great sponsors
-
reactjs.org
Discontinued The React documentation website [Moved to: https://github.com/reactjs/react.dev]
-
-
SurveyJS
Open-Source JSON Form Builder to Create Dynamic Forms Right in Your App. With SurveyJS form UI libraries, you can build and style forms in a fully-integrated drag & drop form builder, render them in your JS app, and store form submission data in any backend, inc. PHP, ASP.NET Core, and Node.js.
-
swift-corelibs-foundation
The Foundation Project, providing core utilities, internationalization, and OS independence
I have. I actually worked a few desks down from dpc when he was creating it and we talked about it at length. I felt then and now that it has good goals but a very limiting implementation in that it does not pursue a portable spec and instead anchors a very opinionated format to git, and github, instead of cryptographic keys held in hardware owned controlled by reviewers. I want to see the same keys that sign git commits also sign reviews, for instance.
I think for broad adoption a review system should ask essentially the same questions as crev, but store them in a format like in-toto including signatures by the reviewers created with a user choice of pgp smartcards, ssh keys, or webauthn devices. These reviews would be anchored to hashes of a particular state of a particular tree of code and not to any type of VCS or distribution system. Important code is distributed via Perforce, mercurial subversion, and tar files depending if we are talking about big corps, or linux distro building blocks. A good OSS review system should be also be usable by teams in their internal proprietary codebases too if we wish to see wide adoption. Even for OSS we may wish to share some reviews as standalone objects privately while security embargos are in place, etc. Proofs should also be verified standalone easily from local cache, when github is down, when original repos vanish, etc.
Something that meets these broader needs will make it easy for large orgs with very different internal setups to participate and play nice with other supply chain efforts by the OpenSSF using in-toto for reproducible builds, etc.
My experience tells me we need something much more ambitious than crev, but crev proved to me many people have real interest in this problem which I really thank dpc for.
The biggest blocker for starting this project is the human review spec settling in in-toto https://github.com/in-toto/attestation/issues/77
Sigh... The traditional argument is that every dependency is of the same quality and trustworthiness of the language Standard Library.
If I use the SL, then I should also have no problem using some lashed-up chimera that has a dependency hierarchy that spans three continents.
Like I said, I'll do things my way.
For the record, here's a peek at some of the "worthless" packages that I use in my own work: https://github.com/RiftValleySoftware
Also, for the record, here's the Swift Foundation Library: https://github.com/apple/swift-corelibs-foundation
It has plenty of open issues: https://github.com/apple/swift-corelibs-foundation/issues
If every dependency chain can match these, yhen I'll be open to considering them.
As it is, I do use the occasional external package, but I'm picky.