4 ms·

Github is part of critical infrastructure. It is bad enough it is blocked in Iran and some other countries.

by jankotek 6y ago

simias 6y ago
Then that's a problem that needs fixing. Make the web decentralized again!
- dotancohen 6y ago
  If only we had some form of decentralized source code management.
  - simias 6y ago
    The problem is that git is not feature complete to replace github. In hindsight I wish it had gone the Fossil route: integrate issue management in the distributed repo. If issues, wiki and code review were integrated in git proper it would be trivial to change host on a dime. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way (yet?).
    - kevincox 6y ago
      I'm not so convinced. Seeing as I use a number of issue trackers and code review systems daily and most of them are trash. I'm very happy for git to serve as a compatible core and I can "easily" move between systems as they improve. Basically I am glad that git does source control well. And I prefer that there is a marketplace of issue trackers, patch management and CI software layered on top. Until we have a clear excellent solution I don't think there is a need to bind them together. Let there be choice!
      - simias 6y ago
        I see where you're coming from, but that does create a big barrier to decentralization. The youtube-dl source code is safe and sound but as far as I know all the issues, discussions, unmerged PRs and more are lost forever. I suppose the ideal would be if git somehow provided a low level API that could be used to build these types of solution and then everybody would be free to build their own solution on top of it. Much easier said than done, of course.
        kevincox 6y ago
        > all the issues, discussions, unmerged PRs and more are lost forever I don't see your argument here. Any decentralized solution wouldn't really help here if it wasn't used. And if it was used any decentralized solution would have helped even if it wasn't built into git. Is the argument that if we bundled it together people would be more likely to use it?
        simias 6y ago
        Of course, that's precisely the argument. Currently cloning a git repository is trivial, you can have different branches targeting different remotes etc... It's decentralized at the core. An issue solution that built on top of this architecture would be very powerful and "just work" while a solution built on the side will face an uphill battle for adoption. Basically my point is that I consider issues to be an integral part of a repository's history, and it's a weakness of VCSs not to integrate it. A lot of the time I find Github comments on a feature/issue to be vastly more interesting and important than the resulting commit message.
        kevincox 6y ago
        That makes sense. My counter argument is that even if it was built in it is unlikely to be good enough to be used by the majority of projects. But maybe I'm over estimating the difficulty of making a top quality issue tracker and code review tool.
    - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
      > If issues, wiki and code review were integrated in git proper it would be trivial to change host on a dime. It would also constrain the various competing solutions to all conform to the git standard.
      - Qwertious 6y ago
        "It would also constrain the various competing solutions to all conform to the git standard. " That's already more-or-less the case. Gitlab refuses to add Hg support because they pretty much hardcoded their platform around Git and don't want to abstract that away. Github doesn't support Hg. And in August, Bitbucket permanently disabled their Hg support too. Personally, I want to see Git die. But you're talking about pantomime portability here.
        MaxBarraclough 6y ago
        I wasn't talking about support for version-control systems other than git. I was talking about the way GitHub, GitLab, and SourceHut, can all offer different bug-reporting/wiki features. These features aren't predetermined by the git standard, and that's a good thing.
    - rvense 6y ago
      Actually, why couldn't you keep issues as text files in a folder in the repo... I mean, you've got your CI stuff and documentation and everything else in there.
      - simias 6y ago
        You could, but that would get messy quick since it would add a new commits to be merged/rebased every time somebody wants to comment. I guess the easiest solution would be to make it a submodule so that it could evolve at its own pace, but then you still want to be able to reference specific versions of the code in the comments, so maybe it would make more sense to make the code a submodule of the issue repo. Maybe with good tooling that would be workable with git as it is.
        dotancohen 6y ago
        > You could, but that would get messy quick since it would > add a new commits to be merged/rebased every time somebody > wants to comment. How about a branch "bugtracker". A smart UI could keep this branch checked out internally. You know what, I'm going to flesh this out. If anybody has something insightful, please comment here. I'll write the first rough UI in Python CLI app, but the real value I'm looking to create is in the file formats so that other UIs can be created. I'll do issues first, then PRs, but all input is welcome. My gmail username is the same as my HN username if anybody would prefer to contact me in email.
        dotancohen 6y ago
        Here is the repo, PRs welcome: https://github.com/dotancohen/entomology https://github.com/dotancohen/entomology Note that this is very rough, it only has about two hours of work in it.
      - teddyh 6y ago
        There are a number of tools for distributed bug tracking: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22833037 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22833037
    - m4rtink 6y ago
      Pagure is a git forge you can self host (or use the hosted instance) that stores all project metadata (issues, wiki, etc.) in git, not just the project source code: https://pagure.io/pagure https://pagure.io/pagure

Github is part of critical infrastructure. It is bad enough it is blocked in Iran and some other countries.

simias 6y ago

Then that's a problem that needs fixing. Make the web decentralized again!

dotancohen 6y ago
If only we had some form of decentralized source code management.
- simias 6y ago
  The problem is that git is not feature complete to replace github. In hindsight I wish it had gone the Fossil route: integrate issue management in the distributed repo. If issues, wiki and code review were integrated in git proper it would be trivial to change host on a dime. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way (yet?).
  - kevincox 6y ago
    I'm not so convinced. Seeing as I use a number of issue trackers and code review systems daily and most of them are trash. I'm very happy for git to serve as a compatible core and I can "easily" move between systems as they improve. Basically I am glad that git does source control well. And I prefer that there is a marketplace of issue trackers, patch management and CI software layered on top. Until we have a clear excellent solution I don't think there is a need to bind them together. Let there be choice!
    - simias 6y ago
      I see where you're coming from, but that does create a big barrier to decentralization. The youtube-dl source code is safe and sound but as far as I know all the issues, discussions, unmerged PRs and more are lost forever. I suppose the ideal would be if git somehow provided a low level API that could be used to build these types of solution and then everybody would be free to build their own solution on top of it. Much easier said than done, of course.
      - kevincox 6y ago
        > all the issues, discussions, unmerged PRs and more are lost forever I don't see your argument here. Any decentralized solution wouldn't really help here if it wasn't used. And if it was used any decentralized solution would have helped even if it wasn't built into git. Is the argument that if we bundled it together people would be more likely to use it?
        simias 6y ago
        Of course, that's precisely the argument. Currently cloning a git repository is trivial, you can have different branches targeting different remotes etc... It's decentralized at the core. An issue solution that built on top of this architecture would be very powerful and "just work" while a solution built on the side will face an uphill battle for adoption. Basically my point is that I consider issues to be an integral part of a repository's history, and it's a weakness of VCSs not to integrate it. A lot of the time I find Github comments on a feature/issue to be vastly more interesting and important than the resulting commit message.
        kevincox 6y ago
        That makes sense. My counter argument is that even if it was built in it is unlikely to be good enough to be used by the majority of projects. But maybe I'm over estimating the difficulty of making a top quality issue tracker and code review tool.
  - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
    > If issues, wiki and code review were integrated in git proper it would be trivial to change host on a dime. It would also constrain the various competing solutions to all conform to the git standard.
    - Qwertious 6y ago
      "It would also constrain the various competing solutions to all conform to the git standard. " That's already more-or-less the case. Gitlab refuses to add Hg support because they pretty much hardcoded their platform around Git and don't want to abstract that away. Github doesn't support Hg. And in August, Bitbucket permanently disabled their Hg support too. Personally, I want to see Git die. But you're talking about pantomime portability here.
      - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
        I wasn't talking about support for version-control systems other than git. I was talking about the way GitHub, GitLab, and SourceHut, can all offer different bug-reporting/wiki features. These features aren't predetermined by the git standard, and that's a good thing.
  - rvense 6y ago
    Actually, why couldn't you keep issues as text files in a folder in the repo... I mean, you've got your CI stuff and documentation and everything else in there.
    - simias 6y ago
      You could, but that would get messy quick since it would add a new commits to be merged/rebased every time somebody wants to comment. I guess the easiest solution would be to make it a submodule so that it could evolve at its own pace, but then you still want to be able to reference specific versions of the code in the comments, so maybe it would make more sense to make the code a submodule of the issue repo. Maybe with good tooling that would be workable with git as it is.
      - dotancohen 6y ago
        > You could, but that would get messy quick since it would > add a new commits to be merged/rebased every time somebody > wants to comment. How about a branch "bugtracker". A smart UI could keep this branch checked out internally. You know what, I'm going to flesh this out. If anybody has something insightful, please comment here. I'll write the first rough UI in Python CLI app, but the real value I'm looking to create is in the file formats so that other UIs can be created. I'll do issues first, then PRs, but all input is welcome. My gmail username is the same as my HN username if anybody would prefer to contact me in email.
        dotancohen 6y ago
        Here is the repo, PRs welcome: https://github.com/dotancohen/entomology https://github.com/dotancohen/entomology Note that this is very rough, it only has about two hours of work in it.
    - teddyh 6y ago
      There are a number of tools for distributed bug tracking: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22833037 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22833037
  - m4rtink 6y ago
    Pagure is a git forge you can self host (or use the hosted instance) that stores all project metadata (issues, wiki, etc.) in git, not just the project source code: https://pagure.io/pagure https://pagure.io/pagure