Switch the namecoin repository to namecoin-qt by default

[khal]

Current default branch is the original namecoin one, without GUI.
I think it may be the time to switch the github repository to the namecoin-qt branch by default.

Advanced users can still switch to the master branch if they want, and default branch would provide the ability to compile the GUI and namecoind.

[phelix]

Current default branch is the original namecoin one, without GUI.
I think it may be the time to switch the github repository to the namecoin-qt branch by default.

Advanced users can still switch to the master branch if they want, and default branch would provide the ability to compile the GUI and namecoind.

+1

Some people think namecoin-qt does not have the daemon included. That's why I called the repo namecoinq and would prefer this or something other then namecoin-qt.

[indolering]

Could someone explain why the QT branch doesn't just include the namecoind branch as a module? It seems really odd that QT isn't in it's own repo entirely. Is this just an artifact of being descendent from Bitcoin?

[phelix]

Could someone explain why the QT branch doesn't just include the namecoind branch as a module? It seems really odd that QT isn't in it's own repo entirely. Is this just an artifact of being descendent from Bitcoin?

Yes. Also I think the code is intermingled/shared.

[khal]

Yes. Also I think the code is intermingled/shared.

The GUI uses every part of the daemon, except for the RPC part (but both can be used too, the GUI should be able to provide the daemon if activated in the conf).
So yes, code can't be separated.

To enable a real split, the wallet features should not but included in the daemon and the GUI should communicate with the external daemon (2 different processes).
Like the bitcoin implementation in go : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=192880.0 / https://blog.conformal.com/ (then even split the app in more piece). It is a really good design choice to split like that, if we could have a namecoin version with this I would be more than happy :p (and using the golang is a good choice too IMO)

[indolering]

Yes. Also I think the code is intermingled/shared.

The GUI uses every part of the daemon, except for the RPC part (but both can be used too, the GUI should be able to provide the daemon if activated in the conf).
So yes, code can't be separated.

To enable a real split, the wallet features should not but included in the daemon and the GUI should communicate with the external daemon (2 different processes).
Like the bitcoin implementation in go : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=192880.0 / https://blog.conformal.com/ (then even split the app in more piece). It is a really good design choice to split like that, if we could have a namecoin version with this I would be more than happy :p (and using the golang is a good choice too IMO)

Have you seen the talk of switching to the libcoin library? It already has Namecoin support.

For now, just switch it to namecoin-qt as the default branch and include separate build instructions. Eventually, we should scuttle the old namecoin branch and rename namecoin-qt -> namecoin.

Although, I wouldn't mind getting rid of Namecoin-QT for a while if it meant more progress on the command line client. We really don't need to worry about the GUI (note that this is the UX person saying this) because 99.9% of people registering a domain name need to have a registrar handle all the backend stuff for them (like renewals, computer backups, hiccups in the blockchain, etc). Giving people a really good GUI to do that on their own is like handing them a gun to shoot themselves with.