These pull requests are more than a month and need to be reviewed: github.com/monero-project/monero-si…s%3Aopen+label%3A%22needs+review%22

I labelled them so that reviewers know are prioritary

Please prioritize 973, it's just a refactor but it's an important change. Needed for Weblate

will try to review some today

ErCiccione[m]: can we get Netlify to trigger for those?

Sure, doing it now

All of them except the Kovri moneropedia have already a preview tho.

oh, the roadmap too :)

Ok, it's building

The previews are up

Thanks selsta :)

.merge+ #973 #1002

Added

About 937 (a lot of moneropedia articles translated into Chinese). It was initially opened by a chinese translator on gitlab. It has been thoroughly reviewed by a native speaker, but i opened the the PR and github and integrated the review, so i cannot approve it by myself. If somebody could take a look at it please do, because it's really a huge amount of work that should go in as soon as possible.

I just pushed to trigger netlify and the preview is ready

tks

ErCiccione[m]: would like a second native speaker to read through the revamped homepage before we merge it

(I like it from the design)

the headlines have weird capitalisation

also can you increase the margin between text and button? it’s too narrow IMO

would prefer the same margin like headline and text

Selsta: you mean english native speaker? If that's the case sure. Would make me feel better too.

I will take a look at the rest when i'll be back, i'm on mobile now.

yes, I think it is especially important on the front page

to have perfect text :)

Yeah, definitely.

.merge+ #1050

Added

Monerpedia still contains Kovri materials? (and this is referenced on the home page)

Two typos noted on the PR page

^ selsta ErCiccione[m]

sarang. Thanks. I've been doing a "kovri cleaning" recently. Since we mention it in a lot of places. There is an open issue to keep track of the progresses: monero-project/monero-site #910

Every time i open a PR which cleans kovri stuff i link it to that issue, so that it's easy for people to browse the progresses

we recently removed 22 moneropedia entry which were specifically related to Kovri/i2p

I just went to see the roadmap page on getmonero.org, it displays grey on grey. I don't have any CSS overrides. I have no JS. The page seems to load no external resources which'd get blocked.

If it works for others, ignore it, as it's probably my setup. But do check once.

The "done" ones in 2014-2015 at least. In 2020, the bottom half are visible.

(ugly though)

Triptych isn't coming soon though AFAIK. It's a longer term thing.

Second layer either.

"We're researching X" != "We plan to deploy X"

moneromooo: Could you show me a screenshot of what you see? I'm not sue of what you mean with grey on grey.

about second ayer and tryptych, i'm ok with removing them or moving to "future" if people feel that way

I was thining of removing the "coming soon" section from 2020 either way, since it's hard to plan if something will be really ready or not. e.g. kastelo

Instead of "future" why not use "research" or something?

A lot of research (most?) doesn't end up being directly deployable

It's an old FF since I need a security extension (ironic...) that doesn't work on recent FF. If it's just that, it can be ignored.

sarang: The point of the 'future' tab is to show what will be added in the future, so i think would be better to just remove everything we are not "planning to add", withiut adding what's being researched. I think that would be harder to maintain

Are the orange ellipses meant to look like this ?

No. That should be a problem of cache. Try cleaning that up

moneromooo ^

we always have this kind of problems after css changes

i guess has been some time since you visited that page :)

Wheee. My apologies. Totally readable and nice now.

Probably years :)

eheh :)

:P

All suggestions added. Please give another review to the homepage: monero-project/monero-site #948

netlify's preview was updated too

hi frenz

I uploaded some historical stuff that you may enjoy and find useful

feel free to clone / fork so that there's more copies of this than just on my computer

ooh cool. There should be a monero-designs repo somewhere. We could add it there, but also to the website

I don't know if ancient historical stuff is of interest

like for the website

but could definitely go into designs

feel free :)

yeah, probably worth it only for the mrl logo

still nice to have tho

ErCiccione: left a comment in #948

Hope it's not too late

No worries, i can push again :)

netrik182 asymptotically and others. If you guys are ok with the PR please leave an approval so we can put it in the merge list :)

ErCiccione[m]: "Get Some Coins"

some capitalized?

that’s what I meant with weird capitaliztion

but only minor anyway guess this can get merged for now

selsta: Should that be capitalized or not? title case confuse me a little 😛 i thought i fixed them all

.merges

ErCiccione[m]: you did not capitalize "a" but did "some"

so wasn’t sure if that was intended

did i mess it up in my suggestion? it is quite confusing lol

selsta: It's just the result of my ignorance about how title case works. I'm gonna fix

I also don’t know how to properly do this

but it looked inconsistent

asymptotically: no, don't worry

i think the easiest way is to cheat and use a tool. much easier than memorising rules :) titlecase.com/titlecase

selsta: i used an online tool for fixing and iirc it suggested it that way ('some' capitalized but not 'a'), i'm gonna double check

yeah that's what i used

ErCiccione[m]: oh ok didn’t know about that

yes i confirm. That tool capitalizes 'some' but not 'a'

so i think it's fine

.merge+ #948

Added

like I said no idea how these rules work :D

oh luigi1111 since you are merging right now, 948 can go in as well

Thanks luigi!

now that 948 is merged the "using monero" page doesn't exist anymore. Would be perfect to have a redirect from getmonero.org/get-started/using/ to the homepage

binaryfate ^

ack

Feel free to update the website when you want binaryfate, but we will need to flush the cdn right after

+ redirect, of course

"plus redirect, of course"

(the plus didn't show up on riot)

I'm testing my local master right now btw, just to make sure there are no surprises :)

all good

I had one question about MRL preprints on the site

It used to be the case that we'd maintain two versions of some preprints: one on the site (with an MRL formatting) and one on IACR (with a more standard formatting)

This was irritating and wasted time, so now the IACR versions (where they exist) are the only versions, and are externally linked

A couple people have suggested still hosting locally, perhaps in case IACR were to be compromised or something

Any particular opinions on this? I ask because I noticed that the links to IACR preprints aren't labeled as external links or anything, and appear identical to "in-house" links

Why were the formattings different ?

suraeNoether and I built an MRL document class with the MRL logo and stuff

Historical reasons then ?

but IACR preprints generally use one of a few more standard templates

yes

Would a good compromise be to label the external links clearly?

The papers are in git now, right ?

Then users can assess if they consider that more risky or not

They do exist in Git, yes

but the PDFs are on getmonero

and/or IACR

Is the feat "IACR gets pwned, serves crafted PDFs" or "IACR gets pwned, we lose the data" ? THe former I guess, since git (unless the people asking do not know).

s/feat/fear/

The former

IACR only hosts a copy of the PDF

the TeX source is on git

so anyone with git and a tex installation can generate the PDFs themselves

Keeping a mirror on getmonero.org sounds like something that's easy to automate.

Or read the TeX and interpret the math directly, Matrix-style

Another more straightforward option (than maintaining separate copies with different formatting) is to just ensure that IACR revisions are accompanied by corresponding monero-site PRs

That would mean that the IACR version and the monero-site version could be out of sync, since IACR revisions are instantaneous

depending on the workflow used for this process

Again, I don't really consider "IACR serves bad PDFs" to be a big risk

but thought I'd mention it

Maybe labeling external links is reasonable enough to warn users

?

Certainly. And a link to git.

so instead of `Read Paper` (the current link) it'd be `Read Paper (on IACR)` and `View Source (on GitHub)` or something?

Then there are still canonical versions of PDFs and sources

Having mismatched versions is just annoying

Sounds like a good idea to me.

^ ErCiccione[m]

This will require some extra translation strings

Any objection?

Or perhaps icons for PDF and source?

I dunno, I'm not a designer

Yeah we can do that. One of my todo's is to change the way hyperlinks are displayed, so that all external links will have the classic "external link" symbol. Same for the automatic links to moneropedia article (which we link to using @. Like @node links to the 'node' moneropedia entry). This is slightly different, we can do it separately.

the extra translatable strings shouldn't be a problem

sarang could you open an issue about it?

ErCiccione[m]: do you have any particular thoughts on whether or not a clear labeling of the link destination would suffice for users who may be concerned about the possibility that IACR could (hypothetically) be compromised?

To be clear, I have _no_ indications that this has ever been the case

But yes, I'll open an issue now

Also: I am not @sarang on github

I am @SarangNoether

I don't know who @sarang is

If they're afraid of IACR PDFs being crafted, they should be afraid of getmonero.org PDFs being crafted tbh.

moneromooo: it still seems like a good idea to label external links anyway

especially if we want to link to github too, which I also think is a good idea

I think we should definitely warn user when they are clicking on a link that goes outside getmonero

moneromooo: somebody proposed to add checksums to all PDFs on getmonero, so that people can check if they are genuine

But FWIW, there are few sites in the world viewed by more security experts than the IACR archive =p

sarang: sorry about that, sometimes i go in automatic mode

np

just noticed it by chance

Adding checksums seems very belt-and-suspenders, and also means someone has to sign them all

Otherwise it's useles

*useless

linking to the source that uses signed git commits should be fine

I doubt that pdf hashes would be used often

yeah i'm not a big fan of that idea, i just mentioned it because somebody requested it

ErCiccione[m]: monero-project/monero-site #1053

Heh, I don't sign my commits

SHA-1 signatures for commits have issues

I also don't know of any TeX-vector malware...

sarang: you should set up signing commits

Certainly could

Thanks sarang. i will get to it soon. I will probably use two icons to differentiate

Cool

As long as it's clear to the user

Once that's ready, I can make a PR to include the GitHub links

They're not all on the same repo, unfortunately

Perhaps it's best to commit the newer papers, which are currently on my research repo, to a `monero-project` repo?

This could make it easier to catch any changes if I turned evil

Yes, would be better to have everything on the research lab repo in the 'monero-project' project

and possibly using signed commits

Or maybe a separate publications repo?

The research-lab repo is very out of date... suraeNoether and I started using separate repos to ensure that there weren't out-of-date versions of research floating around

Plus I like the decentralization it provides to research

Anyone can contribute to MRL

i think putting everything inside the 'monero-project' umbrella would make people feel safer, but i think what's important is that everything is in the same repo

Right, I think I was unclear

I think there should be a `monero-project/publications` repo

to hold MRL preprints, ZtM, etc.

And these can be linked to from the site

ah ok, a new repo

Then there's more accountability, and it's clear where publications live

ya

Thoughts?

Then it'd require merging from a maintainer

which ensures there can't be random commits to malware or some such thing

Sounds good to me. If it works for the maintainers and for you MRL guys, i would go for it

TBH there aren't that many updates to preprints, but at least this way external PDFs are instantly updated, and the worst case is that GitHub source gets delayed a bit

It's not an ideal workflow, but it seems reasonable to me

shrug

^ UkoeHB_ this could be used for ZtM too

so the link is to a commit signed by a maintainer, reducing risk (in theory)

So basically right now the MRL repo is only up for historical reasons, but it's not actively used beside issues, right?

sarang ^

correct

I don't even have a single `master`-type branch on my own research repo, since so many of the projects are separate anyway

I use branches for projects

It seemed silly to do feature branches and then merge back

and having 30 separate tiny repos was annoying

I see. Personally i think would be better to clean up (reorganize) the MRL repo and add the PDFs there. Mostly because i like the idea of having everything in one place, but whatever works for you. If you decide to go for a separate repo i would just disable issues and leave the repo as simple "storage".

to avoid having people opening issues in 2 repos and having to monitor both

but at the end, whatever work for you is ok

That opens up the question of the purpose of the `research-lab` repo more broadly

A discussion I've had at length with suraeNoether before

I don't like that it centralizes research activity

I don't like that it was slow to update and therefore out of sync with active work

I don't like that multiple independent research projects don't play nicely with the idea of a single `master`-type branch structure

That being said, I'm not sure what the ideal arrangement is

What you need is a... web ring :D

I do like that `research-lab` is good destination for issues/discussion

and hosting preprints for the site on a github repo under `monero-project` seems wise

yeah i see your point. The 'publications' repo sounds like a good compromise

So I am open to suggestions about the best way to structure all this

What's unfortunate is that anyone who tries to find research by only looking under `monero-project` will be sorely disappointed and find only stale work

but i do suggest to disable issues on that repo and clarify that research-lab should be ued instead

But to some extent there is no "official" research... there are several active contributors who work as they see fit

(for questions/issues)

Oh for sure

sarang; that could be mitigated by updating the readme of the MRL repo with some info. Right now it's very outdated

e.g. Isthmus and friends do a lot of research under their own repos

True

Perhaps linking to contributors' repos?

from the `research-lab` README?

This does create some manner of centralization of who gets listed

but that could certainly be open to broader community discussion if it came up

Yeah, a general overview + links would be useful

I doubt too many people would clamor for inclusion in such a list anyway

`monero-project/monero` README does list to my repo and suraeNoether's

and is there to encourage researchers to reach out with questions etc.

s/list/link

yeah i don't see that as a problem and if somebody want to be included they can simply request it

sarang sounds fine to me, let me know if I need to do anything