4 ms·

What is the name of the distributed github? I think it may be based on activitypub. EDIT: https://github.com/forgefed/forgefed https://github.com/forgefed/forg

What is the name of the distributed github? I think it may be based on activitypub. EDIT: https://github.com/forgefed/forgefed https://github.com/forgefed/forgefed

tannhaeuser 7y ago
git?
vector_spaces 7y ago
Here's another based on the Secure Scuttlebutt protocol https://www.scuttlebutt.nz/applications.html#git-ssb https://www.scuttlebutt.nz/applications.html#git-ssb
- hobofan 7y ago
  git-ssb is pretty nice, and I'd recommend anyone interested to check it out! The last time I checked it out it suffered from some incompatibility bugs from different parts of the stack, though, which are sadly not unusual with a project with such a large surface area and high code churn.
ignaloidas 7y ago
Git is DVCS, D means Distributed. Anyone can run their git and manage incoming contributions by email, which is distributed, and what git is built to use. See https://drewdevault.com/2018/07/23/Git-is-already-distributed.html https://drewdevault.com/2018/07/23/Git-is-already-distribute...
- sschueller 7y ago
  Yes obviously, but there is added functionality from a service like github/gitlab. Pull requests, issues etc. We wouldn't be using and paying for a service like Github if git had all the features we want/need.
  - ignaloidas 7y ago
    Mailing lists. Many providers, easy setup. Pull requests are an artificial addition to git workflow, it was designed with email patches as the main way to send contributions. Bug tracking is fine with mailing lists too.
    - Avamander 7y ago
      Mailings lists (and e-mail as such) are seriously cumbersome to use as a way to send contributions and even more so when you want to track bugs. Every email archive software also looks like it was made in the 80s and is disgusting, slow and unreasonably difficult to use and also lacks any kind of organizational features that issue trackers have. It is absolutely not "fine", it's borderline tolerable at best.
      - ignaloidas 7y ago
        So you are saying that sending an e-mail is seriously cumbersome? Excuse me, but for me it is a lot more steps from local edit to a contribution using Github. For Github I (1) have to create a fork (2) set it as a remote in my local copy, or if I forgot how to do it, (2.1) pull another one and copy my changes to it, (3) push my changes to my fork, (4) open a pull request in Github, which takes 3 context switches. Meanwhile for email I (1) look at README to find the email of development mailing list, (2) set it up for git send-email(https://git-send-email.io/ https://git-send-email.io/) and (3) send my patches upstream, all with me staying withing my editor with an integrated terminal. No need to open up gmail or thunderbird, or even mutt or aerc. Contribution workflow is a lot more streamlined. If you don't like mailing lists for issue tracking, there is git-bug or plethora of different bugtracking software for you.
        Avamander 7y ago
        Now you described only sending one patch. How do you deal with continuous integrations and making sure things like CLAs are signed? How does issue tracking integrate there? Answer: it doesn't, it's all a major PITA to arrange. > For Github I (1) have to create a fork (2) set it as a remote in my local copy, or if I forgot how to do it, (2.1) pull another one and copy my changes to it, (3) push my changes to my fork, (4) open a pull request in Github, which takes 3 context switches. You mean you don't create a fork by cloning the repository onto your PC when using e-mail? Or that somehow `git send-email` is harder than `git push`? I disagree having done both. I'd gladly remove `send-email` from git for it's negative effects on FOSS, it's clearly making people think it's somehow nice to use or start using. > there is git-bug or plethora of different bugtracking software for you. All of them are absolutely terrible to use. The sooner all FOSS migrates to Gitlab the better - we're stifling FOSS' progress by using tools majorly out-of-date.

What is the name of the distributed github? I think it may be based on activitypub. EDIT: https://github.com/forgefed/forgefed https://github.com/forgefed/forgefed

tannhaeuser 7y ago

git?

vector_spaces 7y ago

Here's another based on the Secure Scuttlebutt protocol https://www.scuttlebutt.nz/applications.html#git-ssb https://www.scuttlebutt.nz/applications.html#git-ssb

hobofan 7y ago
git-ssb is pretty nice, and I'd recommend anyone interested to check it out! The last time I checked it out it suffered from some incompatibility bugs from different parts of the stack, though, which are sadly not unusual with a project with such a large surface area and high code churn.

ignaloidas 7y ago

Git is DVCS, D means Distributed. Anyone can run their git and manage incoming contributions by email, which is distributed, and what git is built to use. See https://drewdevault.com/2018/07/23/Git-is-already-distributed.html https://drewdevault.com/2018/07/23/Git-is-already-distribute...

sschueller 7y ago
Yes obviously, but there is added functionality from a service like github/gitlab. Pull requests, issues etc. We wouldn't be using and paying for a service like Github if git had all the features we want/need.
- ignaloidas 7y ago
  Mailing lists. Many providers, easy setup. Pull requests are an artificial addition to git workflow, it was designed with email patches as the main way to send contributions. Bug tracking is fine with mailing lists too.
  - Avamander 7y ago
    Mailings lists (and e-mail as such) are seriously cumbersome to use as a way to send contributions and even more so when you want to track bugs. Every email archive software also looks like it was made in the 80s and is disgusting, slow and unreasonably difficult to use and also lacks any kind of organizational features that issue trackers have. It is absolutely not "fine", it's borderline tolerable at best.
    - ignaloidas 7y ago
      So you are saying that sending an e-mail is seriously cumbersome? Excuse me, but for me it is a lot more steps from local edit to a contribution using Github. For Github I (1) have to create a fork (2) set it as a remote in my local copy, or if I forgot how to do it, (2.1) pull another one and copy my changes to it, (3) push my changes to my fork, (4) open a pull request in Github, which takes 3 context switches. Meanwhile for email I (1) look at README to find the email of development mailing list, (2) set it up for git send-email(https://git-send-email.io/ https://git-send-email.io/) and (3) send my patches upstream, all with me staying withing my editor with an integrated terminal. No need to open up gmail or thunderbird, or even mutt or aerc. Contribution workflow is a lot more streamlined. If you don't like mailing lists for issue tracking, there is git-bug or plethora of different bugtracking software for you.
      - Avamander 7y ago
        Now you described only sending one patch. How do you deal with continuous integrations and making sure things like CLAs are signed? How does issue tracking integrate there? Answer: it doesn't, it's all a major PITA to arrange. > For Github I (1) have to create a fork (2) set it as a remote in my local copy, or if I forgot how to do it, (2.1) pull another one and copy my changes to it, (3) push my changes to my fork, (4) open a pull request in Github, which takes 3 context switches. You mean you don't create a fork by cloning the repository onto your PC when using e-mail? Or that somehow `git send-email` is harder than `git push`? I disagree having done both. I'd gladly remove `send-email` from git for it's negative effects on FOSS, it's clearly making people think it's somehow nice to use or start using. > there is git-bug or plethora of different bugtracking software for you. All of them are absolutely terrible to use. The sooner all FOSS migrates to Gitlab the better - we're stifling FOSS' progress by using tools majorly out-of-date.