4 ms·
> It turns out using Git, which is almost always used with a centralized 'remote', to do federation, which needs to be weakly consistent, IS A BAD IDEA!!!!! Gi
by rektide 3y ago
> It turns out using Git, which is almost always used with a centralized 'remote', to do federation, which needs to be weakly consistent, IS A BAD IDEA!!!!!
Given that a user owns their feed, I'm not sure why this is a bad idea?
I want to take this critiques here seriously but there's not a ton to grasp onto. It definitely didn't feel great that AtProto built from bare ground, reinvented json-schema & OpenAPI for no reason. But ultimately this is one of a number of grievances that feels like doesn't really matter. It's stupid & dumb but in the end it doesn't matter. It's hard to tell which of these points really have hard & real impact. And which are just bias.
The general feeling is an unencumbered letting out of biases, which makes it harder to trust.
- barathr 3y agoMy limited understanding of the problem about git as the basis for user data storage is that it then would expose the complexity of git rebasing and the rest via federation. Git is great with a centralized remote (like I believe the original post is getting at) but less so in a federated setting.
- capableweb 3y agoRebasing and similar operations are only a hassle because multiple authors can edit the same files, so you end up with conflicts. In the scenario where every authors can only change their own files, you can avoid those sort of conflicts, as they'll never happen. Remaining is how to solve files referencing other files (in the case of a federated social media, posts that are replies to other posts) which are way easier to solve, as it's not really conflicts but invariants that have to be created.
- codetrotter 3y ago> every authors can only change their own files, you can avoid those sort of conflicts, as they'll never happen A single author can still run into these issues with git if they use multiple devices. Can the same happen in this social media network for a user that uses the same account on their phone, their tablet and their computers?
- capableweb 3y ago> A single author can still run into these issues with git if they use multiple devices. No, using multiple devices are fine, as long as you're not editing the same content in two different ways on them. Meaning changing "A B" to "A C" on one device, and to "A D" on the other. > Can the same happen in this social media network for a user that uses the same account on their phone, their tablet and their computers? When using AT protocol, you'd still be connected to the same PDS, so no conflicts. The conflicts mentioned earlier are about server<>server federation, not server<>client communication.
- groestl 3y agoWell, rebasing is definitely not a must when using Git.
- afiori 3y agoRebasing is how the AT protocol handles deleting posts
- groestl 3y agoThat's.. interesting.
- afiori 3y agoIt must be noted that in the context of the AT protocol the "file tree" is (likely) mostly append only, flat, and with globally unique ids, that is because the commits are not for files but for database entries. If I am correct then conflicts are impossible and you are the only one that can write to your* "branch" * I doubt that forking and merging are possible so it does not really have any practical UX relations to git rebase.
- BlueTemplar 3y agoHow would it fare with a system like Darcs/Pijul where rebasing and cherry picking aren't problematic ? https://initialcommit.com/blog/pijul-version-control-system#purpose https://initialcommit.com/blog/pijul-version-control-system#...
- linuxdude314 3y agoThis is not true. Users won’t be exposed to rebasing, only developers. Rebasing is what powers some deletion features and is what would power the ability to edit. The functionality would be obfuscated behind easy to use UX constructs.
- im_dario 3y agoIt doesn’t really use Git, but it has Git semantics. They borrowed some basic concepts (repository, commit, etc).
- linuxdude314 3y agoExactly. Anyone worrying about having to rebase, is over thinking it. This is a protocol level detail hidden behind shiny UX elements. I’ve been using Bluesky for 2 months now; it’s very easy to use.
- dathinab 3y ago> Given that a user owns their feed, I'm not sure why this is a bad idea? that by itself is a bad idea users being able to arbitrary edit tweets in a social network is never a good idea because the moment you say (i.e. tweet) somethingpublic it's not just your thing anymore,
- linuxdude314 3y agoWhat you’re saying is nonsense. Posts are stored in a merkle tree; you can’t just change stuff. Don’t spread misinformation please.