Move repo to Github

FireFart · 2014-03-12 21:22:57

Are there any thoughts on moving the project to github? You can create a proxmark organization and add all main developers to it.

The main benefit of moving to github would be pull requests. So everyone can contribute to the sourcecode, patches can be reviewed and automatically merged. I would really appreciate it because the wiki really needs some refurbish and this would be easy via pull requests.

0xFFFF · 2014-03-14 00:00:36

I'm all for this but we need the support from the community in general.
The website, forum and wiki are hopelessly out of date and difficult to navigate (for new comers).

If you are for this movement, please post here now.
If you are against this please explain why.
This will mean that we will have to agree on a cut-off date - A time that we will switch over to git.

I've felt that the PM3 and other projects on this forum have been hindered by the lack of administration.

asper · 2014-03-14 00:12:42

I am for.

piwi · 2014-03-14 07:49:03

+ 1

midnitesnake · 2014-03-14 08:39:39

sure, mays sense.

0xFFFF · 2014-03-17 01:11:45

I've migrated the repo for TESTING purposes only - link.

There are a lot of users I don't have details for and others that were inactive so I decided not to add any members.
The repo is currently open. Feel free to poke around.

I think I will give this two weeks before making anything official. In that time I would like us to discuss how this organization and repo(s) will be managed and laid out.

If everyone is happy with how things are progressing, we will set an official date (perhaps another 2-4 weeks) before we make the switch and stop using the existing repository.
The additional few weeks is to ensure that everyone gets a fair chance to comment on this migration and iron out any problems (if any).

0xFFFF · 2014-03-19 00:14:22

Is anyone interested in volunteering for administrative control? If you're interested, please let me know.
"This team will be able to push/pull to its repositories, as well as add other collaborators to them."

ikarus · 2014-03-19 21:12:28

+1 (or more like +1000 )

asper · 2014-03-19 23:44:06

I am not good at github but I would like to "administrate" posts in the forum.

0xFFFF · 2014-03-20 04:47:22

The only people that can give you that authority are rule or gerhard.
I have requested full access to the forums, website, etc... a number of times. I would like to clean up and upgrade everything here and on the website.

ikarus · 2014-03-20 09:18:36

And agin +1 for 0xFFFF for wanting to "clean up and upgrade everything here and on the website".
I hope they will give you access one day...

Last edited by ikarus (2014-03-20 09:19:25)

iceman · 2014-03-20 12:42:42

With the new Github, I get the following error when I'm trying to compile.

cmdlf.c:30:21: error: cmdlfio.h: No such file or directory
cmdlf.c:536: error: 'CmdLFIO' undeclared here (not in a function)

Is there a file missing?

0xFFFF · 2014-03-20 21:42:04

iceman wrote:

With the new Github, I get the following error when I'm trying to compile.
cmdlf.c:30:21: error: cmdlfio.h: No such file or directory
cmdlf.c:536: error: 'CmdLFIO' undeclared here (not in a function)
Is there a file missing?

Yes.
The error is a result of a merge (pull request from PenturaLabs).
You can have a look at the changes here: https://github.com/Proxmark/proxmark3/pull/2/files
You can create issues here (I encourage all contributors to use this!): https://github.com/Proxmark/proxmark3/issues

Which reminds me - I think there should be a stable branch.

FireFart · 2014-03-20 21:53:16

On github the master branch should be the stable one but thats hard to maintain when there is no testing. Unstable branches should be seperated. You can create a tag of a stable version and reference this. BTW: There is a commit in google code which needs to be merged over to the github repo.

asper · 2014-03-20 22:02:34

I am sorry, how revs are named now that the code is on github? Next one is r851?

FireFart · 2014-03-20 22:04:30

refs are sha1 hashes. Example: cf608ac8f37549561f9bdee1dd655a69b65882a8 --> https://github.com/Proxmark/proxmark3/commit/cf608ac8f37549561f9bdee1dd655a69b65882a8, or in short cf608ac --> https://github.com/Proxmark/proxmark3/commit/cf608ac

iceman · 2014-03-20 22:18:51

A stable branch would be nice.

I'm a bit confused about how the github-site works, but I get over it.

However, after creating an account there I searched for "proxmark3" and there is quite a few mods out there. A bit sad that not all code is in the same distro, so we can all take advantage of the mods.

FireFart · 2014-03-20 22:25:51

Quick explanation:
If you want to submit a patch, you fork the original project. This copies the contents over to your accounts. Then you create a branch, make your changes, commit it and push it to your repo. After that you can create a pull request via the webinterface to merge your branch in the base branch from the proxmark community. Then you can discuss the patch, modify it by repushing your changes to the same branch and after all is good, you can automatically merge it via the webgui.
Links:
Try git:
http://try.github.io/levels/1/challenges/1
http://readwrite.com/2013/09/30/understanding-github-a-journey-for-beginners-part-1
http://lifehacker.com/5983680/how-the-heck-do-i-use-github

asper · 2014-03-20 22:27:06

Well sha1 are very difficult to "follow", i think i will start to name/number compiled releases with a new nomenclature.

FireFart · 2014-03-20 22:29:01

jeah i think there is a need for versions. After a commit is merged and tested for some time, you can create a tag (= link to s specific revision). The tag can than be downloaded as a zip file or checked out

asper · 2014-03-21 08:24:30

Maybe this question sounds stupid but... will the old google code be maintained anymore ? Because right now we have all merged but:
1 - the 2 new pentura's patches are at github only;
2 - a new patch submitted by yobibe (r850) is at google code ony...
can someone please "level" those differences ? If we start to add patch to google code and vice-versa and no one notice them it will become a sort of chaos...

EDIT: and also: do you think that this new Enio patch deserve to enter the official code ? Quoting a famous song "I don't want to miss a thing..."

EDIT2: submitted iceman issue to proxmark github issues section.

Last edited by asper (2014-03-21 08:38:05)

pentura_prox · 2014-03-21 08:43:40

0xFFFF wrote:

iceman wrote:
With the new Github, I get the following error when I'm trying to compile.
cmdlf.c:30:21: error: cmdlfio.h: No such file or directory
cmdlf.c:536: error: 'CmdLFIO' undeclared here (not in a function)
Is there a file missing?
Yes.
The error is a result of a merge (pull request from PenturaLabs).
You can have a look at the changes here: https://github.com/Proxmark/proxmark3/pull/2/files
You can create issues here (I encourage all contributors to use this!): https://github.com/Proxmark/proxmark3/issues

Which reminds me - I think there should be a stable branch.

Whoops, teach me to carefully read the git-commit file log on the git push, just commited a new pull with these files.

asper · 2014-03-21 08:47:21

I am also trying to learn how github works... for now I installed the windows client and i just found out that there is a very comfortable "drag&drop" feature/"button" at the bottom of the client interface window... you drag the github link directly from the browser and it works ! (source files are stored in "C:\Users\Username\Documents\GitHub\proxmark3").

Last edited by asper (2014-03-21 09:03:06)

FireFart · 2014-03-21 09:03:21

You can also use tools like travis ci to automatically compile the code on a pull request. This way you can automatically see, if there are errors like missing files:

http://docs.travis-ci.com/user/languages/c/

Enio · 2014-03-21 09:03:55

EDIT: and also: do you think that this new Enio patch deserve to enter the official code ? Quoting a famous song "I don't want to miss a thing...

I'd not add that yet, its very much testing. Once we know what we can do with it ill üut it in a module of its own im fpga, and add a command of its own. Right now it disables the original "hf 14b simlisten"

Also, *.o files normally get created at compiletime - i wouldnt add them to git/svn.

Last edited by Enio (2014-03-21 09:04:34)

asper · 2014-03-21 09:39:36

Thank you Enio !

I would like to point out r850 patch: this new patch, introduced by yobib, provide the "proxmark3 -h" command and is able to show "online" and "offline" client commands... but how can i execute "proxmark3 -h" if proxmark executable needs a serial port ? And how can i execute the -h parameter "when the proxmark is connected":

"Some commands are available only if a Proxmark is actually connected,\n"

if the proxmark3 executable is already run ? There is something weired in that patch, don't you think ? Should it need to be removed from the official source code ?

iceman · 2014-03-21 11:00:39

Thanks for adding my issue.

A version number system like the one Asper suggest is needed. I'm all for it.

An automated build system is nice to have but the first rule cvs's is not to commit code that doesnt compile...
but missing files doesn't show up in your own build. You do notice it when you get the code from the cvs.

There was on github both "watchandsim" functions and a desfire function and auto-brutefore .. all of which would be nice to have in the main distro.

The question about sync between google-code now and when we drop it, is also important not to forget.

0xFFFF · 2014-03-21 12:18:51

asper wrote:

Maybe this question sounds stupid but... will the old google code be maintained anymore ? Because right now we have all merged but:
1 - the 2 new pentura's patches are at github only;
2 - a new patch submitted by yobibe (r850) is at google code ony...
can someone please "level" those differences ? If we start to add patch to google code and vice-versa and no one notice them it will become a sort of chaos...
EDIT: and also: do you think that this new Enio patch deserve to enter the official code ? Quoting a famous song "I don't want to miss a thing..."
EDIT2: submitted iceman issue to proxmark github issues section.

Earlier I posted 'The repo is for testing purposes only'. BUT it seems that there is nothing holding us back from doing this sooner rather than later.
I propose that from here on in we use GitHub. Is there any reason not to? (Please post your votes for this)
If so, I would encourage everyone to cease using Google code immediately.

I have not looked in to r850 but since it's the only commit 'out of sync', can I rely on you 'yobibe' to put this in to GitHub yourself?

Just to be clear on versioning -
Is everyone OK with using Semantic Versioning with tagging?

asper · 2014-03-21 12:35:06

0xFFFF wrote:

Earlier I posted 'The repo is for testing purposes only'. BUT it seems that there is nothing holding us back from doing this sooner rather than later.
I propose that from here on in we use GitHub. Is there any reason not to? (Please post your votes for this)
If so, I would encourage everyone to cease using Google code immediately.
I have not looked in to r850 but since it's the only commit 'out of sync', can I rely on you 'yobibe' to put this in to GitHub yourself?
Just to be clear on versioning -
Is everyone OK with using Semantic Versioning with tagging?

I am for GitHub "sooner".

The old svn r850 patch seems a non-sense to me but I wait for yobibe answer.

Yes, this kind of "versioning" is what I was thinking about and tagging is great ! About tagging... you mean we can have a "version" insted of sha1 or we will have both on GitHub ?

Thank you for you support 0xFFFF !

piwi · 2014-03-21 18:31:17

0xFFFF wrote:

I've migrated the repo for TESTING purposes only - link.
There are a lot of users I don't have details for and others that were inactive so I decided not to add any members.

I tried to sign up to github with username piwi but get an error "Login is already taken". Hijacked?

holiman · 2014-03-24 12:10:03

+1, I'm all for github. My github username is 'holiman'

ikarus · 2014-03-24 23:21:48

+1 for "sooner" on github
Semantic Versioning with tagging is fine.
But I still think the master should be "stable"

To sum up:
- "stable" master branch
- tagging on master for releases ("git tag -a v1.0.0" will crate a "release" on github. e.g. see MCT)
- testing branch ("unstable" pull requests should use this branch as target. This way they could be tested before being merged into the master)

0xFFFF · 2014-03-24 23:52:12

ikarus wrote:

But I still think the master should be "stable"
To sum up:
- "stable" master branch
- tagging on master for releases ("git tag -a v1.0.0" will crate a "release" on github. e.g. see MCT)
- testing branch ("unstable" pull requests should use this branch as target. This way they could be tested before being merged into the master)

I'm for it ikarus. The unstable branch has been created. *It might be easier (especially for newcomers) if the there was a stable branch.

FireFart · 2014-03-25 17:52:00

New patch to add to github:
https://code.google.com/p/proxmark3/source/detail?r=852

asper · 2014-03-25 17:59:41

FireFart please make a pull request on GitHub and be sure to make some tests before releasing something. Old google code repository is no more considered official so please do not add code there (to google code) to avoid possible confusion.

FireFart · 2014-03-25 18:07:07

the patch is not mine just saw it on Google code

holiman · 2014-03-25 20:52:08

Nope, that's piwi.

On another note, while we're restructuring the development, we should have a proxmark-dev mailing list. I don't like how easy it is to miss important discussions on the forum. I find it works well on other OS-projects I'm involved in.

Enio · 2014-03-25 21:34:55

holiman wrote:

Nope, that's piwi.
On another note, while we're restructuring the development, we should have a proxmark-dev mailing list. I don't like how easy it is to miss important discussions on the forum. I find it works well on other OS-projects I'm involved in.

Totally for it.

ikarus · 2014-03-25 22:46:41

+1 for dev mailing list!

Edit:
And while restructuring the development, maybe introduce some sort of coding style?!
I know, it is hard to stick to a style you don't like, but it makes the code more consistent and
for others it increases the readability. Maybe we should at least TRY it...
And I saw inconsistent indentation (tabs or spaces) and new lines (windows or linux) in the source.
(I would prefer spaces (4) for indentation and linux line ends.)
This is something that could easily be avoided by configuring your editor right.

Last edited by ikarus (2014-03-25 23:14:43)

0xFFFF · 2014-03-26 01:50:48

We've gone off topic a little bit with the mailing list. I've started a new topic here.

0xFFFF · 2014-03-26 02:01:35

ikarus wrote:

And while restructuring the development, maybe introduce some sort of coding style?!
I know, it is hard to stick to a style you don't like, but it makes the code more consistent and
for others it increases the readability. Maybe we should at least TRY it...
And I saw inconsistent indentation (tabs or spaces) and new lines (windows or linux) in the source.
(I would prefer spaces (4) for indentation and linux line ends.)
This is something that could easily be avoided by configuring your editor right.

Spaces are great. Personally I do the same thing anyway. Any respectable editor can do this.
Linux EOL makes sense to me. Will this make things difficult for Windows users?

doegox · 2014-03-26 09:12:07

asper wrote:

The old svn r850 patch seems a non-sense to me but I wait for yobibe answer.

Hello,
Did you ever tried it?
Yes proxmark client requires mandatory serial port as argument since the USB stack has been rewritten, not my fault.
Still you can use proxmark3 client for its offline commands as it always have been the case, just type "./proxmark3 foo" and you can handle and process e.g. recorded traces of LF tags.
Proof is that I didn't invented the categorization between online and offline commands, it's in the code since long time.
All I did is to allow to get an overview of those online and offline commands with the option "-h" (which btw works without serial port)

I hope I convinced you this commit wasn't non-sense...

Phil

asper · 2014-03-26 09:21:24

Hi Phil, now I understand but I have problems running "proxmark3 -h" under Windows shell: the client crash at:

#./proxmark3 -h
syntax: ./proxmark3 <port>

    Linux example:'./proxmark3 /dev/ttyACM0'


------------PROXMARK3 HELP DUMP--------------
Some commands are available only if a Proxmark is actually connected,
Those commands are flagged with "@" in front of their description.

help

And I must force close shell windows.

So my question is: the correct syntax is ./proxmark3 -h or simply proxmark3 -h ? Can this command be "recalled" when I am already inside proxmark3 environement (client already started with correct com prt)? If someone can pull/add doegox patch to github I will try to test it deeper under windows.

Sorry for misunderstaning it !

Last edited by asper (2014-03-26 09:21:51)

holiman · 2014-03-26 09:34:45

I have also tested the patch, it works well under linux. However, before I commit it to github, I thought i'd change it a bit. Since github wiki-pages are written in markdown, I thought it'd be nice if the feature can be made to output markdown-friendly output, so we can just paste it into the github wiki.

I tried it last evening, the result is here : https://github.com/Proxmark/proxmark3/wiki/commands
I'll do some more work on it, but I really like to tie sourcecode and documentation closer together, and not just have documentation as a static asset which nobody takes the time to update. Good idea, Phil!

doegox · 2014-03-26 09:38:43

I've put the commit on this branch: https://github.com/doegox/proxmark3/tree/addhelp
I didn't make a pull request yet because there are apparently problems under Windows (I'm using linux indeed) and suggestions for markdown.
So I prefer to let you experimenting and hopefully making it better :-)
Thanks for your support
Phil

holiman · 2014-03-26 09:44:17

doegox wrote:

I've put the commit on this branch: https://github.com/doegox/proxmark3/tree/addhelp
I didn't make a pull request yet because there are apparently problems under Windows (I'm using linux indeed) and suggestions for markdown.
So I prefer to let you experimenting and hopefully making it better :-)
Thanks for your support
Phil

Ok, I'll branch your repo instead, and make my changes on that one. Handling things like these with git/hg/bzr is so much nicer than svn/cvs ever was!

asper · 2014-03-26 09:55:18

Thank you both for your support guys and sorry for my errors; I will try the new patch under windows as soon as I can.

I am just adding some wiki page to the GitHub wiki renewing them with latest changes/links/updates; for now I am linking to "old" google code download section, if someone can explain me how to upload files on github wiki I will try to transfer files on GitHub.

holiman · 2014-03-26 10:27:08

I've messaged with Roel, and can happily report that he is on board with both the move to github and starting a mailinglist. He'd naturally also like to be administrator on both parts (but I don't know his github username). He volunteered to host the mailinglist, but is a bit busy this week, but maybe next.

And yes, he hopes to be more active again in the future, and enjoys to see the community getting stronger. I think it's picked up the pace the last year, and I think it'll be even stronger after these two moves!

asper · 2014-03-26 11:49:32

Great news form Roel !

I confirm there is an error using the -h parameter under Windows, here is a screenshot:

shell crashes here and a windows message appears to force close the program; additional error details here:

Problem signature:
  Problem Event Name:	APPCRASH
  Application Name:	proxmark3.exe
  Application Version:	0.0.0.0
  Application Timestamp:	5332b007
  Fault Module Name:	pthreadGC2.dll
  Fault Module Versione:	2.9.0.0
  Fault Module Timestamp:	4dd6e26b
  Exception Code:	c0000005
  Exception Offset:	00006627
  OS Version:	6.1.7601.2.1.0.256.1
  Locale ID:	1040
Additional Information 1:	0a9e
Additional Information 2:	0a9e372d3b4ad19135b953a78882e789
Additional Information 3:	0a9e
Additional Information 4:	0a9e372d3b4ad19135b953a78882e789

There seems to be a problem with pthreadGC2.dll and the new -h parameter; anyway proxmark3 client seems to work fine for the rest.

Similar error with WIndows XP:

Last edited by asper (2014-03-26 11:53:56)

ikarus · 2014-03-26 22:47:42

0xFFFF wrote:

Will this make things difficult for Windows users?

I don't think so. Even simple windows editors like notepad++ are supporting linux EOLs.

doegox wrote:

I didn't make a pull request yet because there are apparently problems under Windows (I'm using linux indeed) and suggestions for markdown.

You can make a pull request to the unstable branch of proxmark3, if you want

Proxmark3 community

Announcement

#1 2014-03-12 21:22:57

Move repo to Github

#2 2014-03-14 00:00:36

Re: Move repo to Github

#3 2014-03-14 00:12:42

Re: Move repo to Github

#4 2014-03-14 07:49:03

Re: Move repo to Github

#5 2014-03-14 08:39:39

Re: Move repo to Github

#6 2014-03-17 01:11:45

Re: Move repo to Github

#7 2014-03-19 00:14:22

Re: Move repo to Github

#8 2014-03-19 21:12:28

Re: Move repo to Github

#9 2014-03-19 23:44:06

Re: Move repo to Github

#10 2014-03-20 04:47:22

Re: Move repo to Github

#11 2014-03-20 09:18:36

Re: Move repo to Github

#12 2014-03-20 12:42:42

Re: Move repo to Github

#13 2014-03-20 21:42:04

Re: Move repo to Github

#14 2014-03-20 21:53:16

Re: Move repo to Github

#15 2014-03-20 22:02:34

Re: Move repo to Github

#16 2014-03-20 22:04:30

Re: Move repo to Github

#17 2014-03-20 22:18:51

Re: Move repo to Github

#18 2014-03-20 22:25:51

Re: Move repo to Github

#19 2014-03-20 22:27:06

Re: Move repo to Github

#20 2014-03-20 22:29:01

Re: Move repo to Github

#21 2014-03-21 08:24:30

Re: Move repo to Github

#22 2014-03-21 08:43:40

Re: Move repo to Github

#23 2014-03-21 08:47:21

Re: Move repo to Github

#24 2014-03-21 09:03:21

Re: Move repo to Github

#25 2014-03-21 09:03:55

Re: Move repo to Github

#26 2014-03-21 09:39:36

Re: Move repo to Github

#27 2014-03-21 11:00:39

Re: Move repo to Github

#28 2014-03-21 12:18:51

Re: Move repo to Github

#29 2014-03-21 12:35:06

Re: Move repo to Github

#30 2014-03-21 18:31:17

Re: Move repo to Github

#31 2014-03-24 12:10:03

Re: Move repo to Github

#32 2014-03-24 23:21:48

Re: Move repo to Github

#33 2014-03-24 23:52:12

Re: Move repo to Github

#34 2014-03-25 17:52:00

Re: Move repo to Github

#35 2014-03-25 17:59:41

Re: Move repo to Github

#36 2014-03-25 18:07:07

Re: Move repo to Github

#37 2014-03-25 20:52:08

Re: Move repo to Github

#38 2014-03-25 21:34:55

Re: Move repo to Github

#39 2014-03-25 22:46:41

Re: Move repo to Github