今日已更新 35 条资讯 | 累计 23992 条内容
关于我们

标签:#git

找到 1246 篇相关文章

开源项目

🔥 alirezarezvani / claude-skills - 337 Claude Code skills & agent skills & plugins (30+ Agents,

GitHub热门项目 | 337 Claude Code skills & agent skills & plugins (30+ Agents, 70+ custom commands, 330+ skills, customizable references, scripts)for Claude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI, Cursor, and 8 more coding agents — engineering, marketing, product, compliance, C-level advisory, research, business operations, commercial & finance, and your daily productivity skills. | Stars: 19,948 | 130 stars today | 语言: Python

2026-07-04 原文 →
AI 资讯

Copilot CLI drops the PAT requirement inside GitHub Actions

GitHub said this week that Copilot CLI, when it runs inside a GitHub Actions workflow, will accept the built-in GITHUB_TOKEN for authentication. Per the July 2 changelog, the previous path required creating and storing a personal access token. The operational read is small and precise: one fewer human-owned credential to mint, rotate and inherit. The exact scope of the change The changelog covers a narrow surface. It applies to Copilot CLI when invoked from a GitHub Actions workflow, and it swaps the required credential from a PAT to the workflow's ambient GITHUB_TOKEN . GitHub does not describe changes to how Copilot CLI authenticates outside Actions, and this post will not extrapolate to those contexts. If your Copilot CLI usage lives on a developer laptop or in another CI system, nothing in this announcement moves for you. Why the PAT was the wrong credential to leave in the loop A personal access token has almost none of the properties you would want from an automation credential. It does not expire on a job boundary. It carries a person's identity, not the workflow's. It sits in Actions secrets long enough to outlive the engineer who created it. And its scopes were chosen by that engineer, at that moment, often wider than the job actually needs. GITHUB_TOKEN is the opposite shape. Actions mints it at the start of a job, scopes it through the workflow's permissions: block, and revokes it when the job ends. If the token leaks, the window for abuse is the runtime of the job, not the years until somebody remembers to rotate it. When the person who wrote the workflow leaves, the pipeline does not silently break because a token expired with their account. For scripted Copilot CLI calls that had to be wrapped in a PAT, that is the whole win. The tool authenticates against the workflow instead of against a human. Wiring it up The workflow-side pattern is the same one every GITHUB_TOKEN -consuming step already follows: declare permissions: explicitly at the job level, k

2026-07-04 原文 →
开源项目

🔥 ansible / ansible - Ansible is a radically simple IT automation platform that ma

GitHub热门项目 | Ansible is a radically simple IT automation platform that makes your applications and systems easier to deploy and maintain. Automate everything from code deployment to network configuration to cloud management, in a language that approaches plain English, using SSH, with no agents to install on remote systems. https://docs.ansible.com. | Stars: 69,096 | 50 stars today | 语言: Python

2026-07-03 原文 →
AI 资讯

Digital Signatures: Format, Certificate, and Validation Policy Are Not the Same Thing

Digital Signatures: Format, Certificate, and Validation Policy Are Not the Same Thing The right move when a digital signature fails validation is don't look at the cryptography first . I know that sounds backwards. If the algorithm is RSA-2048 and the certificate chain is intact, why would validation fail? Because a signature can be cryptographically perfect and still get rejected by the validator. The problem isn't the hash or the private key — it's the format, the wrong certificate, or the validation policy the system is applying. My thesis is simple: most errors that look cryptographic in digital signatures are actually upper-layer errors — incompatible format, a certificate that doesn't meet the required profile, or a validation policy that the issuer and receiver never aligned on. And confusing those three layers has a real cost: debugging time wasted in the wrong place. The Real Mess: Three Layers People Keep Mixing Up When a digital signature fails validation, the typical mental sequence is: "Is the algorithm correct? Does the private key match the public one? Did the certificate expire?" Those are reasonable questions, but they're all in the same layer. The problem is there are three distinct layers, and each one can fail independently. Layer 1 — Signature Format The format defines how the signature is packaged together with the signed data. CMS/PKCS#7 is not the same as XAdES, PAdES, or JAdES. Each has variants: BASELINE-B , BASELINE-T , BASELINE-LT , BASELINE-LTA . Choosing CAdES-BASELINE-B when the receiver expects XAdES-BASELINE-LT produces a rejection that has nothing to do with the cryptographic algorithm. The public documentation for DSS (Digital Signature Service) from the European Commission describes these variants in detail. DSS is the reference library for eIDAS-compliant signatures, and its documentation is one of the most complete and verifiable resources publicly available. Layer 2 — Certificate The certificate is the signer's identity, but it

2026-07-02 原文 →
开源项目

🔥 Zackriya-Solutions / meetily - Privacy first, AI meeting assistant with 4x faster Parakeet/

GitHub热门项目 | Privacy first, AI meeting assistant with 4x faster Parakeet/Whisper live transcription, speaker diarization, and Ollama summarization built on Rust. 100% local processing. no cloud required. Meetily (Meetly Ai - https://meetily.ai) is the #1 Self-hosted, Open-source Ai meeting note taker for macOS & Windows. | Stars: 13,224 | 132 stars today | 语言: Rust

2026-07-02 原文 →