Bitwarden_rs: Confused with the forks?
Hi,
I am curious what the relation is between dani-garcia/bitwarden_rs and mprasil/bitwarden_rs? I am guessing it's simply because mprasil/bitwarden_rs is te docker version of dani-garcia/bitwarden_rs?
mikkelnl
All 3 comments
Yes, exactly. My repo is pretty much exact copy of this one unless I work on something. (And when I do, I have a branch for the work) I've had the fork with some extra files for docker hub long time ago. Since then we've merged these changes to the main repo, so now the only reason is that I keep it for the docker hub builds, which I'm maintaining. Hope that helps.
mprasil
on 14 Jan 2019
Does Docker Hub support something like Github orgs? If yes, have you guys considered using that, and unifying things on both GitHub and Docker (e.g. bitwarden-rs/* )
When I started reading about this fork on reddit and saw the mismatching usernames between the repo and the docker hub user, my first thought was "installing a docker image for something as sensitive as a password manager from some random dude's docker hub account doesn't seem like a great idea".
ThiefMaster
on 23 Mar 2019
Hey, this is work in progress. The thing is that mprasil/bitwarden started as my side project and it became unexpectedly popular image. So right now we have 5M+ downloads and it shows up on related searches, which means we can't abandon it right away. The image is hopefully somewhat trustworthy as it's automated build (meaning it's build by docker hub itself) straight from repo, so you can verify everything that went in to build it.
Right now we have bitwardenrs org on docker hub. There's already bitrawdenrs/dev image being built on commit if you want to grab the latest stuff for testing, however this one is not an "automated" build (not built on the docker hub side) so it's not inherently trustworthy. The main reason for this setup is that docker hub is suuuper slow to build images.
So the plan is to set up bitwardenrs/server that will be "automated" build and keep it in sync with mprasil/bitwarden for a while. Then change the documentation to direct people to the other image and keep them running like that for year or two so that the new official image shows up in searches, etc.. However I just need to set up these builds to be semi-automatic because it would be kinda hard to keep two repositories updated. So this is what I'm working on right now and hopefully will complete in next week. (just doing some final testing)
Hope that makes sense.
mprasil
on 24 Mar 2019
Related issues
djmattyg007
路
5Comments
ghost
路
6Comments
SpinB
路
3Comments
Jungack
路
3Comments
newkind
路
4Comments
Most helpful comment
Hey, this is work in progress. The thing is that
mprasil/bitwardenstarted as my side project and it became unexpectedly popular image. So right now we have 5M+ downloads and it shows up on related searches, which means we can't abandon it right away. The image is hopefully somewhat trustworthy as it's automated build (meaning it's build by docker hub itself) straight from repo, so you can verify everything that went in to build it.Right now we have
bitwardenrsorg on docker hub. There's alreadybitrawdenrs/devimage being built on commit if you want to grab the latest stuff for testing, however this one is not an "automated" build (not built on the docker hub side) so it's not inherently trustworthy. The main reason for this setup is that docker hub is suuuper slow to build images.So the plan is to set up
bitwardenrs/serverthat will be "automated" build and keep it in sync withmprasil/bitwardenfor a while. Then change the documentation to direct people to the other image and keep them running like that for year or two so that the new official image shows up in searches, etc.. However I just need to set up these builds to be semi-automatic because it would be kinda hard to keep two repositories updated. So this is what I'm working on right now and hopefully will complete in next week. (just doing some final testing)Hope that makes sense.