9 ms·

> bored developers Bored? Git's a distributed version control system, so no excuses. Get back to work! But in all seriousness I kind of wish GitHub provided a

> bored developers Bored? Git's a distributed version control system, so no excuses. Get back to work! But in all seriousness I kind of wish GitHub provided a way to mirror things like issues and PRs so you never have to be fully reliant on one service. Not being able to read these really does make it impossible to get work done offline.

saagarjha 9y ago
> have to be fully reliant on one service My inner cynic says that that's probably the reason why they don't provide this service.
syshum 9y ago
But they want you to Rely on Github... if they could find away to make Git only work with Github they would in a heart bet. Github is not a open source company, it is not really even a supporter of free software IMO they are a danger to free software for this very reason. They are following the old school Microsoft model of Embrace and Extend... I am waiting to see if they can extinguish,
- heartbreak 9y ago
  What? Github employs members of the Rails core team including Aaron Patterson. They literally pay for open source software development. I'm sure they employ direct maintainers/contributors to other open source projects as well.
  - eberkund 9y ago
    The Atom editor is widely used and was a major inspiration for VS Code. Electron, which is a GitHub project is also used for countless other projects.
    - yellowapple 9y ago
      "major inspiration for VS Code" Which is a Microsoft product, and Microsoft is the inventor of EEE. Ergo, GitHub is complicit in an EEE attempt. Q.E.D. Case closed. /s
      - tracker1 9y ago
        So anyone who releases open-source code, that Microsoft might use in another open-source project is complicit in EEE? wow.
        yellowapple 9y ago
        My apologies; I should have made the "/s" - which denotes sarcasm - much more apparent.
  - eropple 9y ago
    Yup. GitHub also released/contributed to a lot of other open-source Ruby stuff, like Resque.
  - hueving 9y ago
    Are they paying him to help make an open source alternative to github? If not, then it's not really relevant. They are actively working against open source tooling for software development by developing features only for their closed platform. Gitlab is a much better example of a company that fully embraces open source.
    - daxelrod 9y ago
      GitLab does not fully embrace Open Source. GitLab Enterprise Edition does not have an open source license. Since GitLab.com runs GitLab EE, their two (presumably) primary sources of revenue (EE licenses and GitLab.com paid accounts) come from non-open source software. But: it's still fair to call GitLab as a company way more Open Source than GitHub. All of their development happens out in the open, the vast majority of their codebase is Open Source, and the source code for GitLab EE is even made available. This is a spectrum, not black and white.
  - syshum 9y ago
    And you believe that makes them an "Open Source Company" To me in order to be a Open Source company your primary product must itself be Open Source. RedHat as an example... RHEL is open source GitLab.. GitLab is open source These are open source companies Hiring a few devs for work on some side projects that are open source does not make one an Open Source Company If they open GitHub Core then they can claim to be a open source company
    - heartbreak 9y ago
      Aaron Patterson, who I'll continue to use as an example, works full time on Rails while being paid by Github. Rails is not a side project for him. Also as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, Github has published plenty of open source software. Electron, Atom, resque, and updates to git itself.
      - syshum 9y ago
        It is a side project for the company, as are all the other projects you mentioned As I clearly stated, GitHub can not be a Open Source company simply because they hired some devs to work on Open Source Do you consider Microsoft to be a Open Source Company?
- pavement 9y ago
  Just because it's A common motivation and strategy, doesn't mean it's THEIR motivation and strategy. A more likely strategy/motivation is that the product is you. AKA: farming the users. Create a desirable pasture, and the animals farm themselves.
  - syshum 9y ago
    It is partly the MS EEE model and partly the Adobe model, where they give away free or low cost services to get indivuals hooked, often at young age, then when they are employed at larger firms they push the firms to adopt that software internally. Get a bunch of Open Source Developers to do your marketing at their "real jobs" so they can sell the Enterprise Version. Since GitHub is a private company it is Unknown (at least I can not find the info) if they are profitable or not, or what their revenue numbers even are so it is unclear if that is a successful plan or not. GitHub could very well run into the same problems as SoundCloud.
- oelmekki 9y ago
  > if they could find away to make Git only work with Github they would in a heart bet. Sorry, but this is unfair :) I remember the early days of Gitlab, before they added all the insanely cool features they have now, when they were just a Github opensource copycat. My thought at the time was : "wow, github is super cool to let them go. At least the almost exact design copy could be a legal problem". Clearly, we would have heard about Github vs Gitlab back then, if Github wanted to lock people in.
  - johannes1234321 9y ago
    Well, if we "heard about GitHub vs. Gitlab" more people outside HN might hear about GitLab. Might be more dangerous, than the chances of a win shutting GitLab down.
    - chucksmash 9y ago
      So you fault them for being evil geniuses by not acting evilly?
      - syshum 9y ago
        More likely they got sound legal advice and realized they could not actually win in court, or their investors killed that idea as a waste of money You do not hear about many VC funded startups initiating lawsuits for a reason. That is the realm of established companies.
- matthewmacleod 9y ago
  Contentless, illogical mince. GitHub clearly contributes a fair bit to open source - not only their own projects, but the free hosting for open source projects. You have no basis for this accusation, and frankly we are all stupider for having read it.
  - Klover 9y ago
    Terribly sorry for this rubbish reply, but here you go: http://i.imgur.com/ueRIgtq.png http://i.imgur.com/ueRIgtq.png I love it, and it's perfect for when you want to say something witty like FUD or D&D, but can't justify it. Now with CIM, I can!
  - syshum 9y ago
    Well I made 2 claims.. 1 Claim was that Github is not a open source company, and they are not. Their core business is not open source, yes they have some side projects that are, but so does MS, I do not believe anyone is going to say MS is a "open source company" the second claim I made is they are a threat to free software, I used free software here for a reason, free software and open source are different. GitHub may support some Open Source things, they do NOT support free software. Tom Preston-Werners infamous post on open sourcing only some things (http://tom.preston-werner.com/2011/11/22/open-source-everything.html http://tom.preston-werner.com/2011/11/22/open-source-everyth...) Is a key piece of evidence to prove this. Git hubs general actions over the years show they do not support free software at all, and have limited support for Open Source software. They are classic Free Software leaches, using and abusing free software not for the ethical reasons around free software but to advance their profit center See I am support free software for ethical reasons, not monetary reasons. That is with out even getting into the MASSIVE issue that is having all of these open source projects on a SINGLE platform. Unless you think github is "too big to fail" which I can assure you it is not
weberc2 9y ago
I'm of the impression that issues and PRs are all accessible via an API. What more should they do?
- tedmiston 9y ago
  From the perspective of someone mid code review during the outage, it's worked as well as it could too. They preserve comment drafts client side that haven't posted to the server yet across page reloads. While it's a little frustrating to have to submit something 3-5x, they're definitely doing something for this use case already. Also as others pointed out, just because the GitHub app is down doesn't always mean the GitHub git server itself is down.
- curun1r 9y ago
  > What more should they do? How about storing issues and PRs in the actual git repository? They should index them for the UI, sure, but the source of truth should be a branch of the git repo just like it is with gh-pages. It should be possible to file a new issue by committing a markdown file to the correct branch and pushing it to Github. Their hub command line tool and their own client could facilitate adding all the correct metadata. This would allow people to work while Github.com is offline and synchronize everything once the service outage is over. If you have access to a distributed database that is already the best available for manual conflict resolution, why wouldn't you want to use it to store this kind of data? A Github outage is like a partition when you think about it from a distributed db perspective, so treat it like an individual node died and still allow reads/writes to the rest of the cluster that can be merged back once the node comes back online.
  - hk__2 9y ago
    > How about storing issues and PRs in the actual git repository? Access to the git repository is regulated; issues and PRs aren’t. Anybody can fill an issue/PR on your repo, but only you (and your team) can modify the repo. You’d need to also store all the comments on all issues and PRs, even closed/rejected ones. In some repositories, that’d be huge.
Moto7451 9y ago
My guess is their sales pitch would be for you to run your own instance of Github Enterprise or doing something fancy with Web Hooks. At work we did the former for a while before switching to Gitlab. We had less downtime than Github (not that they have much) but since the ops is on you in that situation, YMMV.
bradfitz 9y ago
Go has a mirror of our GitHub project via this thing "Maintner" I wrote (running at http://maintner.golang.org/ http://maintner.golang.org/) that syncs GitHub in realtime to a log of mutations. (As well as syncing Gerrit and all its comments etc). So then we can slurp all of our GitHub & Gerrit history into RAM (takes about 5 seconds and 500 MB) via https://godoc.org/golang.org/x/build/maintner/godata#Get https://godoc.org/golang.org/x/build/maintner/godata#Get and walk it in-memory and do stuff with in. (runs our realtime bots, alternate web UIs on planes, alternate search, stats, etc.)
- LeifCarrotson 9y ago
  > Maintner is short for "Maintainer"...the name of the daemon that serves the maintner data to other tools is "maintnerd". Nice work! But as is custom on HN, I'll bikeshed on the name instead of delving into the contents of the tool. Why shorten the word by just 2 letters? Is there something special about the tooling that makes 8-letter projects more desirable than 10-letter projects, or is it linked to the removal of Artificial Intelligence from the process? I'd personally mis-type that name all the time.
  - macintux 9y ago
    I'd prefer it just for searchability. Good luck finding anything online called "maintainer".
    - slackingoff2017 9y ago
      I think he was excgarating the issue a bit. Your logic is sound
      - j_s 9y ago
        > excgarating I commit to re-use this as often as possible! http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Excgarated http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Excgarated An inspiring new word invented by a redditor on March 23, 2014. The redditor was actually trying to spell exaggerated. This word was misspelled so horribly that when it was googled the only thing that came up was a link to the comment itself.
hinkley 9y ago
I keep meaning to dig into Fossil (SQLite's VCS/Project Management system), but I have no faith I could convince a team to use it. Another model to look at is Trac, which had pretty extensive integration with SVN and integrated (ie, cross-linked) issue tracking and wiki, and stored all the data and change history in a svn repository.
- SQLite 9y ago
  > I keep meaning to dig into Fossil, but I have no faith I could convince a team to use it. Developer or Fossil and SQLite here: I agree. In my experience, you'd have better luck convincing the team to switch from vi to emacs. For all its many and well-documented faults, the Git/GitHub paradigm is what people want to use because it is what they are familiar with. All the same, I intend to keep right on using Fossil, thank you very much! So here is the idea I've been thinking of lately: What if Fossil were ported or enhanced to use Git's low-level file-formats so that unmodified git clients could seamlessly push and pull against the (enhanced) Fossil server. Call the new system "Fit" (Fossil+Git). Using Fit, you could stand up a GitHub replacement for an individual project in 5 minutes using nothing more than a 2-line CGI script. Git fan-boys could continue to use their preferred interface, while others who prefer a more rational and user-friendly design could use the Fossil-like "fit" command. Everybody could share code, and everybody would have a nice web-based interface with which to collaborate with tickets and wiki and all the other cool (and to my mind essential) stuff that Fossil provides. And nobody who already knows git would be forced to learn a new command-line interface. I'd be all over writing the code for "Fit", except that I'm already over-extended. Anybody who thinks this is a good idea and would like to pitch in and collaborate, please contact me privately. Thanks.
  - winter_blue 9y ago
    That sounds like a great idea. By leveraging Fossil's existing UI and getting it to work with Git, it might really gain a lot of traction, and become a viable alternative to roll-your-own-github services like GitLab Community Edition.
  - EdiX 9y ago
ericfrederich 9y ago
I agree... I wish GitLab would do this too. No reason that everything can't be modeled as a git branch. GitLab I know models their Wiki as a git repo. I think issues and PRs should be their own repo as well.... a branch for each issue or pr? Could tie it all up using submodules (or not, whatever)... just please someone take the jump first and do this.
- brodock 9y ago
  DISCLAIMER: I work for GitLab. We have a feature to replicate GitLab to different locations (EEP). We call it "Geo", which stands for "Geographical Replication". Part of the "Geo" effort is Disaster Recovery which is under heavily development. We want with Disaster Recovery to be able to reliably promote any Secondary node to a Primary, so if your US datacenter melts down under a nuclear war, you can start working with your copy in EU, India, China, etc.
  - groby_b 9y ago
    If your US datacenter melts down under a nuclear war, I can guarantee that none of your devs will give a damn about contributing to the code base. You might want to modify your scenarios.
    - granda 9y ago
      As someone interested in these scenarios, where could I find out more information about what would happen post-nuclear explosion?
      - groby_b 9y ago
        A lot of this is out in the open There are active simulations going on: http://www.sciencerecorder.com/article.php?n=scientists-conduct-computer-simulation-to-see-the-response-to-nuclear-attack&id=122164 http://www.sciencerecorder.com/article.php?n=scientists-cond... There are preparedness drills: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/new-york-nuclear-attack-drills-manhattan-north-korea-bomb-threat-trump-a7704516.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics... There's plenty of policy analysis: https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/social-economic-effects-nuclear-war https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/social-eco... Older .mil reports: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA080907 http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA080907 There are entire books taking apart what happens in specific fields: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219154/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219154/ Or you could just read disaster porn^W^W post-apocalyptic sci fi. So, a lot depends on what kinds of info you want to find. But overall, I'd say it's not worth reading, because life's not going to be much fun. Even if you're prepared.
javajosh 9y ago
It would be clever to store issues and PRs on a special branch in the repository. I can't currently think of why this wouldn't work (apart from business-wise, it would reduce lock-in considerably).
- justinclift 9y ago
  Well, it's unlikely to be feasible due to Git's on disk structure. With git, every commit has an sha checksum of the commit contents & metadata. And each commit's metadata points to the previous commit. So, if a maintainer wanted to fix a typo or do any other kind of correction/update to an old issue you'd need to rewrite every commit on disk since that one with the updated chain of checksums. eg from the fixed comment, to the head of the special issue/pr branch. That alone would probably make syncing with the repo's a real pain for anyone working on medium to larger sized projects. ;)
  - javajosh 9y ago
    Your objection is predicated on the assumption that issues would need to be edited "for all time". That's not true for anything else in git, I'm not sure why that would be true for issues. I mean, if you had an "issues/" directory in your repo, and files named "issue1" "issue2" and so on, you would just edit the issue whenever. If someone made a branch for the issue, then they'd want to merge your edit into their branch ASAP - which is good, because it indicates that they read and understood the change. And this merge would be particularly painless since changes to "issues/" are absolutely not going to conflict with anything in "src/".
    - justinclift 9y ago
      Ahhh, I see what you mean. Yeah, that would probably work. :)
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
sytse 9y ago
GitLab.com has repository mirroring https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/workflow/repository_mirroring.html https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/workflow/repository_mirroring.htm... (this will soon be a paid account feature) It doesn't mirror issues and PRs but it can do a one time import of them https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/workflow/importing/import_projects_from_github.html https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/workflow/importing/import_project...
- monksy 9y ago
  Shame that data isn't store in a side repository where it could be replicated like the repository.
lettergram 9y ago
"git on the block chain"
TheAceOfHearts 9y ago
You might wanna check out Fossil, it's version control system with integrated bug tracking and wiki. It doesn't really work for all projects, though. [0] http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/index.wiki http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/index.wiki

saagarjha 9y ago

> have to be fully reliant on one service My inner cynic says that that's probably the reason why they don't provide this service.

syshum 9y ago

But they want you to Rely on Github... if they could find away to make Git only work with Github they would in a heart bet. Github is not a open source company, it is not really even a supporter of free software IMO they are a danger to free software for this very reason. They are following the old school Microsoft model of Embrace and Extend... I am waiting to see if they can extinguish,

heartbreak 9y ago
What? Github employs members of the Rails core team including Aaron Patterson. They literally pay for open source software development. I'm sure they employ direct maintainers/contributors to other open source projects as well.
- eberkund 9y ago
  The Atom editor is widely used and was a major inspiration for VS Code. Electron, which is a GitHub project is also used for countless other projects.
  - yellowapple 9y ago
    "major inspiration for VS Code" Which is a Microsoft product, and Microsoft is the inventor of EEE. Ergo, GitHub is complicit in an EEE attempt. Q.E.D. Case closed. /s
    - tracker1 9y ago
      So anyone who releases open-source code, that Microsoft might use in another open-source project is complicit in EEE? wow.
      - yellowapple 9y ago
        My apologies; I should have made the "/s" - which denotes sarcasm - much more apparent.
- eropple 9y ago
  Yup. GitHub also released/contributed to a lot of other open-source Ruby stuff, like Resque.
- hueving 9y ago
  Are they paying him to help make an open source alternative to github? If not, then it's not really relevant. They are actively working against open source tooling for software development by developing features only for their closed platform. Gitlab is a much better example of a company that fully embraces open source.
  - daxelrod 9y ago
    GitLab does not fully embrace Open Source. GitLab Enterprise Edition does not have an open source license. Since GitLab.com runs GitLab EE, their two (presumably) primary sources of revenue (EE licenses and GitLab.com paid accounts) come from non-open source software. But: it's still fair to call GitLab as a company way more Open Source than GitHub. All of their development happens out in the open, the vast majority of their codebase is Open Source, and the source code for GitLab EE is even made available. This is a spectrum, not black and white.
- syshum 9y ago
  And you believe that makes them an "Open Source Company" To me in order to be a Open Source company your primary product must itself be Open Source. RedHat as an example... RHEL is open source GitLab.. GitLab is open source These are open source companies Hiring a few devs for work on some side projects that are open source does not make one an Open Source Company If they open GitHub Core then they can claim to be a open source company
  - heartbreak 9y ago
    Aaron Patterson, who I'll continue to use as an example, works full time on Rails while being paid by Github. Rails is not a side project for him. Also as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, Github has published plenty of open source software. Electron, Atom, resque, and updates to git itself.
    - syshum 9y ago
      It is a side project for the company, as are all the other projects you mentioned As I clearly stated, GitHub can not be a Open Source company simply because they hired some devs to work on Open Source Do you consider Microsoft to be a Open Source Company?
pavement 9y ago
Just because it's A common motivation and strategy, doesn't mean it's THEIR motivation and strategy. A more likely strategy/motivation is that the product is you. AKA: farming the users. Create a desirable pasture, and the animals farm themselves.
- syshum 9y ago
  It is partly the MS EEE model and partly the Adobe model, where they give away free or low cost services to get indivuals hooked, often at young age, then when they are employed at larger firms they push the firms to adopt that software internally. Get a bunch of Open Source Developers to do your marketing at their "real jobs" so they can sell the Enterprise Version. Since GitHub is a private company it is Unknown (at least I can not find the info) if they are profitable or not, or what their revenue numbers even are so it is unclear if that is a successful plan or not. GitHub could very well run into the same problems as SoundCloud.
oelmekki 9y ago
> if they could find away to make Git only work with Github they would in a heart bet. Sorry, but this is unfair :) I remember the early days of Gitlab, before they added all the insanely cool features they have now, when they were just a Github opensource copycat. My thought at the time was : "wow, github is super cool to let them go. At least the almost exact design copy could be a legal problem". Clearly, we would have heard about Github vs Gitlab back then, if Github wanted to lock people in.
- johannes1234321 9y ago
  Well, if we "heard about GitHub vs. Gitlab" more people outside HN might hear about GitLab. Might be more dangerous, than the chances of a win shutting GitLab down.
  - chucksmash 9y ago
    So you fault them for being evil geniuses by not acting evilly?
    - syshum 9y ago
      More likely they got sound legal advice and realized they could not actually win in court, or their investors killed that idea as a waste of money You do not hear about many VC funded startups initiating lawsuits for a reason. That is the realm of established companies.
matthewmacleod 9y ago
Contentless, illogical mince. GitHub clearly contributes a fair bit to open source - not only their own projects, but the free hosting for open source projects. You have no basis for this accusation, and frankly we are all stupider for having read it.
- Klover 9y ago
  Terribly sorry for this rubbish reply, but here you go: http://i.imgur.com/ueRIgtq.png http://i.imgur.com/ueRIgtq.png I love it, and it's perfect for when you want to say something witty like FUD or D&D, but can't justify it. Now with CIM, I can!
- syshum 9y ago
  Well I made 2 claims.. 1 Claim was that Github is not a open source company, and they are not. Their core business is not open source, yes they have some side projects that are, but so does MS, I do not believe anyone is going to say MS is a "open source company" the second claim I made is they are a threat to free software, I used free software here for a reason, free software and open source are different. GitHub may support some Open Source things, they do NOT support free software. Tom Preston-Werners infamous post on open sourcing only some things (http://tom.preston-werner.com/2011/11/22/open-source-everything.html http://tom.preston-werner.com/2011/11/22/open-source-everyth...) Is a key piece of evidence to prove this. Git hubs general actions over the years show they do not support free software at all, and have limited support for Open Source software. They are classic Free Software leaches, using and abusing free software not for the ethical reasons around free software but to advance their profit center See I am support free software for ethical reasons, not monetary reasons. That is with out even getting into the MASSIVE issue that is having all of these open source projects on a SINGLE platform. Unless you think github is "too big to fail" which I can assure you it is not

weberc2 9y ago

I'm of the impression that issues and PRs are all accessible via an API. What more should they do?

tedmiston 9y ago
From the perspective of someone mid code review during the outage, it's worked as well as it could too. They preserve comment drafts client side that haven't posted to the server yet across page reloads. While it's a little frustrating to have to submit something 3-5x, they're definitely doing something for this use case already. Also as others pointed out, just because the GitHub app is down doesn't always mean the GitHub git server itself is down.
curun1r 9y ago
> What more should they do? How about storing issues and PRs in the actual git repository? They should index them for the UI, sure, but the source of truth should be a branch of the git repo just like it is with gh-pages. It should be possible to file a new issue by committing a markdown file to the correct branch and pushing it to Github. Their hub command line tool and their own client could facilitate adding all the correct metadata. This would allow people to work while Github.com is offline and synchronize everything once the service outage is over. If you have access to a distributed database that is already the best available for manual conflict resolution, why wouldn't you want to use it to store this kind of data? A Github outage is like a partition when you think about it from a distributed db perspective, so treat it like an individual node died and still allow reads/writes to the rest of the cluster that can be merged back once the node comes back online.
- hk__2 9y ago
  > How about storing issues and PRs in the actual git repository? Access to the git repository is regulated; issues and PRs aren’t. Anybody can fill an issue/PR on your repo, but only you (and your team) can modify the repo. You’d need to also store all the comments on all issues and PRs, even closed/rejected ones. In some repositories, that’d be huge.

Moto7451 9y ago

My guess is their sales pitch would be for you to run your own instance of Github Enterprise or doing something fancy with Web Hooks. At work we did the former for a while before switching to Gitlab. We had less downtime than Github (not that they have much) but since the ops is on you in that situation, YMMV.

bradfitz 9y ago

Go has a mirror of our GitHub project via this thing "Maintner" I wrote (running at http://maintner.golang.org/ http://maintner.golang.org/) that syncs GitHub in realtime to a log of mutations. (As well as syncing Gerrit and all its comments etc). So then we can slurp all of our GitHub & Gerrit history into RAM (takes about 5 seconds and 500 MB) via https://godoc.org/golang.org/x/build/maintner/godata#Get https://godoc.org/golang.org/x/build/maintner/godata#Get and walk it in-memory and do stuff with in. (runs our realtime bots, alternate web UIs on planes, alternate search, stats, etc.)

LeifCarrotson 9y ago
> Maintner is short for "Maintainer"...the name of the daemon that serves the maintner data to other tools is "maintnerd". Nice work! But as is custom on HN, I'll bikeshed on the name instead of delving into the contents of the tool. Why shorten the word by just 2 letters? Is there something special about the tooling that makes 8-letter projects more desirable than 10-letter projects, or is it linked to the removal of Artificial Intelligence from the process? I'd personally mis-type that name all the time.
- macintux 9y ago
  I'd prefer it just for searchability. Good luck finding anything online called "maintainer".
  - slackingoff2017 9y ago
    I think he was excgarating the issue a bit. Your logic is sound
    - j_s 9y ago
      > excgarating I commit to re-use this as often as possible! http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Excgarated http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Excgarated An inspiring new word invented by a redditor on March 23, 2014. The redditor was actually trying to spell exaggerated. This word was misspelled so horribly that when it was googled the only thing that came up was a link to the comment itself.

hinkley 9y ago

I keep meaning to dig into Fossil (SQLite's VCS/Project Management system), but I have no faith I could convince a team to use it. Another model to look at is Trac, which had pretty extensive integration with SVN and integrated (ie, cross-linked) issue tracking and wiki, and stored all the data and change history in a svn repository.

SQLite 9y ago
> I keep meaning to dig into Fossil, but I have no faith I could convince a team to use it. Developer or Fossil and SQLite here: I agree. In my experience, you'd have better luck convincing the team to switch from vi to emacs. For all its many and well-documented faults, the Git/GitHub paradigm is what people want to use because it is what they are familiar with. All the same, I intend to keep right on using Fossil, thank you very much! So here is the idea I've been thinking of lately: What if Fossil were ported or enhanced to use Git's low-level file-formats so that unmodified git clients could seamlessly push and pull against the (enhanced) Fossil server. Call the new system "Fit" (Fossil+Git). Using Fit, you could stand up a GitHub replacement for an individual project in 5 minutes using nothing more than a 2-line CGI script. Git fan-boys could continue to use their preferred interface, while others who prefer a more rational and user-friendly design could use the Fossil-like "fit" command. Everybody could share code, and everybody would have a nice web-based interface with which to collaborate with tickets and wiki and all the other cool (and to my mind essential) stuff that Fossil provides. And nobody who already knows git would be forced to learn a new command-line interface. I'd be all over writing the code for "Fit", except that I'm already over-extended. Anybody who thinks this is a good idea and would like to pitch in and collaborate, please contact me privately. Thanks.
- winter_blue 9y ago
  That sounds like a great idea. By leveraging Fossil's existing UI and getting it to work with Git, it might really gain a lot of traction, and become a viable alternative to roll-your-own-github services like GitLab Community Edition.
- EdiX 9y ago

ericfrederich 9y ago

I agree... I wish GitLab would do this too. No reason that everything can't be modeled as a git branch. GitLab I know models their Wiki as a git repo. I think issues and PRs should be their own repo as well.... a branch for each issue or pr? Could tie it all up using submodules (or not, whatever)... just please someone take the jump first and do this.

brodock 9y ago
DISCLAIMER: I work for GitLab. We have a feature to replicate GitLab to different locations (EEP). We call it "Geo", which stands for "Geographical Replication". Part of the "Geo" effort is Disaster Recovery which is under heavily development. We want with Disaster Recovery to be able to reliably promote any Secondary node to a Primary, so if your US datacenter melts down under a nuclear war, you can start working with your copy in EU, India, China, etc.
- groby_b 9y ago
  If your US datacenter melts down under a nuclear war, I can guarantee that none of your devs will give a damn about contributing to the code base. You might want to modify your scenarios.
  - granda 9y ago
    As someone interested in these scenarios, where could I find out more information about what would happen post-nuclear explosion?
    - groby_b 9y ago
      A lot of this is out in the open There are active simulations going on: http://www.sciencerecorder.com/article.php?n=scientists-conduct-computer-simulation-to-see-the-response-to-nuclear-attack&id=122164 http://www.sciencerecorder.com/article.php?n=scientists-cond... There are preparedness drills: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/new-york-nuclear-attack-drills-manhattan-north-korea-bomb-threat-trump-a7704516.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics... There's plenty of policy analysis: https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/social-economic-effects-nuclear-war https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/social-eco... Older .mil reports: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA080907 http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA080907 There are entire books taking apart what happens in specific fields: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219154/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219154/ Or you could just read disaster porn^W^W post-apocalyptic sci fi. So, a lot depends on what kinds of info you want to find. But overall, I'd say it's not worth reading, because life's not going to be much fun. Even if you're prepared.

javajosh 9y ago

It would be clever to store issues and PRs on a special branch in the repository. I can't currently think of why this wouldn't work (apart from business-wise, it would reduce lock-in considerably).

justinclift 9y ago
Well, it's unlikely to be feasible due to Git's on disk structure. With git, every commit has an sha checksum of the commit contents & metadata. And each commit's metadata points to the previous commit. So, if a maintainer wanted to fix a typo or do any other kind of correction/update to an old issue you'd need to rewrite every commit on disk since that one with the updated chain of checksums. eg from the fixed comment, to the head of the special issue/pr branch. That alone would probably make syncing with the repo's a real pain for anyone working on medium to larger sized projects. ;)
- javajosh 9y ago
  Your objection is predicated on the assumption that issues would need to be edited "for all time". That's not true for anything else in git, I'm not sure why that would be true for issues. I mean, if you had an "issues/" directory in your repo, and files named "issue1" "issue2" and so on, you would just edit the issue whenever. If someone made a branch for the issue, then they'd want to merge your edit into their branch ASAP - which is good, because it indicates that they read and understood the change. And this merge would be particularly painless since changes to "issues/" are absolutely not going to conflict with anything in "src/".
  - justinclift 9y ago
    Ahhh, I see what you mean. Yeah, that would probably work. :)

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

sytse 9y ago

GitLab.com has repository mirroring https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/workflow/repository_mirroring.html https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/workflow/repository_mirroring.htm... (this will soon be a paid account feature) It doesn't mirror issues and PRs but it can do a one time import of them https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/workflow/importing/import_projects_from_github.html https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/workflow/importing/import_project...

monksy 9y ago
Shame that data isn't store in a side repository where it could be replicated like the repository.

lettergram 9y ago

"git on the block chain"

TheAceOfHearts 9y ago

You might wanna check out Fossil, it's version control system with integrated bug tracking and wiki. It doesn't really work for all projects, though. [0] http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/index.wiki http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/index.wiki