6 ms·

If only git were a distributed version control

by feld 11y ago

Zirro 11y ago
It would be nice not to have to rely on centralized servers at all. A P2P/torrent client built specifically for sharing code from git repositories, perhaps?
- madez 11y ago
  But there is much less commercial incentive behind a p2p alternative. Centralized services are easier to monetize. I look forward to the day governments start to fund free software, for example through the GNU project. Then we'll all have better tools. Actually, there were already some fundings. Germany funded GnuPG to port it to Windows. What do I care what is the new world record in sprinting? But I very much do care about a new release of libreboot, libreCMC/openWRT or Debian! I hope one day we will see peaceful international competitions between nations of who can provide the best/most used free software.
  - dTal 11y ago
    Hear, hear. I've talked about this with people and it's surprisingly hard to convince them that government-sponsored software is a good idea. While a tiny fraction of the amount we already spend on commercial software would utterly transform the free software landscape, it's not politically viable as long as commercial software vendors have lobby power.
    - danieldk 11y ago
      Let's not forget that it is not in many governments' interest to have distributed tools (with strong encryption). It is much easier to take down stuff on centralized services. BTW, it is hear, hear ;).
      - chopman 11y ago
        But of your government is at odds with an oppressive government, it would make sense for it to fund that kind of software so the people could take it down, or at least make trouble, themselves.
      - dTal 11y ago
        Thank you for the correction :)
    - wtbob 11y ago
      > it's surprisingly hard to convince them that government-sponsored software is a good idea That's because it's not. Governments are not reliably good, and their money comes with far more strings than private money. The FSF have it right: people should write free software because proprietary software is immoral.
      - simoncion 11y ago
        > [Government] money comes with far more strings than private money. Have you ever worked on a government-funded project? The Tor folks have and do. :) > ...[P]eople should write free software because proprietary software is immoral. USGov does fund Libre and Open Source software. One big example is the Tor Project.
  - honest_joe 11y ago
    If you want to live in a twisted communist utopia go to some island please.
  - narrowrail 11y ago
    Instead of gov. funded software, I like the idea of hedge fund backed FOSS, where the commercial software competition are publicly traded. This would allow the hedge funds to realize returns, but only if the FOSS produced is viable. Such an arrangement would probably benefit under a non-profit foundation to administer the project(s).
    - scourge 11y ago
      I'm just back from lunch, so I'm struggling to follow. How would the "hedge fund backed FOSS, where the commercial software competition are publicly traded" work?
  - feld 11y ago
    The government is funding free software. Just not in the way you might expect. :-) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jQoAYRKqhg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jQoAYRKqhg
  - ilaksh 11y ago
    Free distributed P2P software makes technopolies like Github AND mafiaficialities like nationstates obsolete. We do not need to and should not rely on the government to fund that.
- mallamanis 11y ago
  There is this https://code.google.com/p/gittorrent/ https://code.google.com/p/gittorrent/ although I've never tried it... edit: a more recent (?) link https://github.com/cjb/gittorrent https://github.com/cjb/gittorrent
  - ywecur 11y ago
    It would be really nice to get it to succeed. Decentralisation is almost always preferable.
  - jlcx 11y ago
    I think they're two different projects, but this is exactly what I thought of. A separate Chinese DDoS was even mentioned by cjb in his announcement of GitTorrent a few months ago: http://blog.printf.net/articles/2015/05/29/announcing-gittorrent-a-decentralized-github/ http://blog.printf.net/articles/2015/05/29/announcing-gittor...
- david_ar 11y ago
  See http://ipfs.io http://ipfs.io and https://github.com/cryptix/git-remote-ipfs https://github.com/cryptix/git-remote-ipfs
- hadeharian 11y ago
  IPFS, anyone?
  - leni536 11y ago
    Yeah, I'm hyped too.
- tomphoolery 11y ago
  > A P2P/torrent client built specifically for sharing code from git repositories, perhaps? Or, we could both set up HTTP servers on our respective machines and simply push to each others repos.
- JustSomeNobody 11y ago
  I thought that was the point of git...
moviuro 11y ago
github is not only git... how many times will we have to tell that? PRs, wikis, issues are the reasons why we use github...
- liw 11y ago
  If only it were possible to keep those things in git itself. Oh wait, it is.
  - paulrouget 11y ago
    Can you explain? How do you store issues in git?
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - wtbob 11y ago
      > How do you store issues in git? An org-mode file named 'issues,' with each issue under its own heading? A directory named 'issues,' with an org-mode or CommonMark file for each issue? A directory named 'issues,' with a directory for each issue, with CommonMark, org-mode or restructured text files for each person's comments?
    - a-priori 11y ago
      You commit your issue database to the same repo as your code and track it alongside your code. Then you just need a tool to manage the database for you, and there's a few tools out there to do this: http://ditz.rubyforge.org/ http://ditz.rubyforge.org/ http://pitz.tplus1.com/ http://pitz.tplus1.com/ https://github.com/jeffWelling/ticgit https://github.com/jeffWelling/ticgit http://www.bugseverywhere.org/ http://www.bugseverywhere.org/ ... and probably others. That's just based on a quick Google search. One nice thing about this approach is that your issue's state follows your code through merges. When you fix the bug you mark it as 'fixed' and commit that change to a branch. When it gets merged into master, the 'fixed' status gets merged as well.
  - gioele 11y ago
benihana 11y ago
Oh cool, I didn't realize git being distributed solved the communication problems that arise on an engineering team. Back to work everyone, git is distributed version control so we don't need pull requests or gists or any kind of easy-to-read historical record that is also accessible for non-engineers.
- Gigablah 11y ago
  If it's that critical then someone needs to fix the SPOF.
- gerbilly 11y ago
  If it's really that important, why not host your own gitlab or pay for a self hosted github installation?
- chopman 11y ago
  If only there was a way to do p2p communication that you could use to send patch files. Uhmmm.
- JustSomeNobody 11y ago
  I think the bigger point is to have a contingency plan in place so your whole engineering team isn't sitting on their thumbs with stupid grins on their faces.

If only git were a distributed version control

by feld 11y ago

If only git were a distributed version control

Zirro 11y ago

It would be nice not to have to rely on centralized servers at all. A P2P/torrent client built specifically for sharing code from git repositories, perhaps?

madez 11y ago
But there is much less commercial incentive behind a p2p alternative. Centralized services are easier to monetize. I look forward to the day governments start to fund free software, for example through the GNU project. Then we'll all have better tools. Actually, there were already some fundings. Germany funded GnuPG to port it to Windows. What do I care what is the new world record in sprinting? But I very much do care about a new release of libreboot, libreCMC/openWRT or Debian! I hope one day we will see peaceful international competitions between nations of who can provide the best/most used free software.
- dTal 11y ago
  Hear, hear. I've talked about this with people and it's surprisingly hard to convince them that government-sponsored software is a good idea. While a tiny fraction of the amount we already spend on commercial software would utterly transform the free software landscape, it's not politically viable as long as commercial software vendors have lobby power.
  - danieldk 11y ago
    Let's not forget that it is not in many governments' interest to have distributed tools (with strong encryption). It is much easier to take down stuff on centralized services. BTW, it is hear, hear ;).
    - chopman 11y ago
      But of your government is at odds with an oppressive government, it would make sense for it to fund that kind of software so the people could take it down, or at least make trouble, themselves.
    - dTal 11y ago
      Thank you for the correction :)
  - wtbob 11y ago
    > it's surprisingly hard to convince them that government-sponsored software is a good idea That's because it's not. Governments are not reliably good, and their money comes with far more strings than private money. The FSF have it right: people should write free software because proprietary software is immoral.
    - simoncion 11y ago
      > [Government] money comes with far more strings than private money. Have you ever worked on a government-funded project? The Tor folks have and do. :) > ...[P]eople should write free software because proprietary software is immoral. USGov does fund Libre and Open Source software. One big example is the Tor Project.
- honest_joe 11y ago
  If you want to live in a twisted communist utopia go to some island please.
- narrowrail 11y ago
  Instead of gov. funded software, I like the idea of hedge fund backed FOSS, where the commercial software competition are publicly traded. This would allow the hedge funds to realize returns, but only if the FOSS produced is viable. Such an arrangement would probably benefit under a non-profit foundation to administer the project(s).
  - scourge 11y ago
    I'm just back from lunch, so I'm struggling to follow. How would the "hedge fund backed FOSS, where the commercial software competition are publicly traded" work?
- feld 11y ago
  The government is funding free software. Just not in the way you might expect. :-) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jQoAYRKqhg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jQoAYRKqhg
- ilaksh 11y ago
  Free distributed P2P software makes technopolies like Github AND mafiaficialities like nationstates obsolete. We do not need to and should not rely on the government to fund that.
mallamanis 11y ago
There is this https://code.google.com/p/gittorrent/ https://code.google.com/p/gittorrent/ although I've never tried it... edit: a more recent (?) link https://github.com/cjb/gittorrent https://github.com/cjb/gittorrent
- ywecur 11y ago
  It would be really nice to get it to succeed. Decentralisation is almost always preferable.
- jlcx 11y ago
  I think they're two different projects, but this is exactly what I thought of. A separate Chinese DDoS was even mentioned by cjb in his announcement of GitTorrent a few months ago: http://blog.printf.net/articles/2015/05/29/announcing-gittorrent-a-decentralized-github/ http://blog.printf.net/articles/2015/05/29/announcing-gittor...
david_ar 11y ago
See http://ipfs.io http://ipfs.io and https://github.com/cryptix/git-remote-ipfs https://github.com/cryptix/git-remote-ipfs
hadeharian 11y ago
IPFS, anyone?
- leni536 11y ago
  Yeah, I'm hyped too.
tomphoolery 11y ago
> A P2P/torrent client built specifically for sharing code from git repositories, perhaps? Or, we could both set up HTTP servers on our respective machines and simply push to each others repos.
JustSomeNobody 11y ago
I thought that was the point of git...

moviuro 11y ago

github is not only git... how many times will we have to tell that? PRs, wikis, issues are the reasons why we use github...

liw 11y ago
If only it were possible to keep those things in git itself. Oh wait, it is.
- paulrouget 11y ago
  Can you explain? How do you store issues in git?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - wtbob 11y ago
    > How do you store issues in git? An org-mode file named 'issues,' with each issue under its own heading? A directory named 'issues,' with an org-mode or CommonMark file for each issue? A directory named 'issues,' with a directory for each issue, with CommonMark, org-mode or restructured text files for each person's comments?
  - a-priori 11y ago
    You commit your issue database to the same repo as your code and track it alongside your code. Then you just need a tool to manage the database for you, and there's a few tools out there to do this: http://ditz.rubyforge.org/ http://ditz.rubyforge.org/ http://pitz.tplus1.com/ http://pitz.tplus1.com/ https://github.com/jeffWelling/ticgit https://github.com/jeffWelling/ticgit http://www.bugseverywhere.org/ http://www.bugseverywhere.org/ ... and probably others. That's just based on a quick Google search. One nice thing about this approach is that your issue's state follows your code through merges. When you fix the bug you mark it as 'fixed' and commit that change to a branch. When it gets merged into master, the 'fixed' status gets merged as well.
- gioele 11y ago

benihana 11y ago

Oh cool, I didn't realize git being distributed solved the communication problems that arise on an engineering team. Back to work everyone, git is distributed version control so we don't need pull requests or gists or any kind of easy-to-read historical record that is also accessible for non-engineers.

Gigablah 11y ago
If it's that critical then someone needs to fix the SPOF.
gerbilly 11y ago
If it's really that important, why not host your own gitlab or pay for a self hosted github installation?
chopman 11y ago
If only there was a way to do p2p communication that you could use to send patch files. Uhmmm.
JustSomeNobody 11y ago
I think the bigger point is to have a contingency plan in place so your whole engineering team isn't sitting on their thumbs with stupid grins on their faces.