3 ms·

It's in the first three paragraphs of the README... > By "distributed", we mean that code reviews are stored inside of the repository as git objects. Every dev

It's in the first three paragraphs of the README... > By "distributed", we mean that code reviews are stored inside of the repository as git objects. Every developer on your team has their own copy of the review history that they can push or pull. Before the part you quoted. I feel like it'd be "nice" of me to suggest maybe you're being pedantic. Otherwise... ?

rcme 3y ago
[flagged]
- taberiand 3y ago
  You don't strictly need a central server, you just need an upstream path between the people involved in the PR. Eg if two developers both served up the same repo from their local machine, and each had an upstream to the other, then this would work as a distributed PR. And you could have any number of arbitrary nodes in that graph
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - rcme 3y ago
    No, that's not decentralized. If two people agree to use a "local" machine, then that local machine is a centralized server. If User A and B use User A's local machine, then User C has no choice but to use User A's local machine to participate in their code review. That's centralized.
    - taberiand 3y ago
      You misunderstand me. In the example I gave, both developers serve the repository. Both developers connect to the other. It's peer to peer. A -- origin --> B A <-- origin -- B
      - rcme 3y ago
        Ok, good point.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- thefroh 3y ago
  I think it is more that no server side setup is needed beyond git to support this. That's to say regardless of the hosted git provider you may be using, they do not need special support for git-appraise. As an aside, if I remember correctly you can also run git without any server at all with multiple contributors. But it isn't the most ergonomic!
  - rcme 3y ago
    Yes, I agree that's probably what they meant. And it's a good feature. But it's also not really decentralized. Git, in my opinion, can be decentralized. You can run git locally and get lots of benefits even if you don't use collaboration. Version history and branching being two such examples. But you can't really get any benefits from code review without a centralized place to pass the reviews through.
    - predictabl3 3y ago
      So because of your limited imagination or usage (or ignorance) of Git, this is "stupid" and "useless". Mmmmk. Yes, virtually any decentralized technology can be used in a way that looks like centralization. But as a doctor might suggest, stop doing, to yourself, the thing that hurts. The fact is, it's entirely possible to use git-appraise without a "centralized git server" just like it is possible to use... decentralized git precisely in such a manner. Moreover, I can pretty much guarantee that whatever you think "really decentralized" would look like, could be used in basically the exact same ways as git-appraise. What does it even mean for something to be decentralized if you're talking about using it on a single machine, with a single user? I just can't man, I can't.
  - Izkata 3y ago
    Yep, you can push and pull directly to/from another person as long as it's not pushing to a branch they currently have checked out (and of course you have read/write access).

rcme 3y ago

[flagged]

taberiand 3y ago
You don't strictly need a central server, you just need an upstream path between the people involved in the PR. Eg if two developers both served up the same repo from their local machine, and each had an upstream to the other, then this would work as a distributed PR. And you could have any number of arbitrary nodes in that graph
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- rcme 3y ago
  No, that's not decentralized. If two people agree to use a "local" machine, then that local machine is a centralized server. If User A and B use User A's local machine, then User C has no choice but to use User A's local machine to participate in their code review. That's centralized.
  - taberiand 3y ago
    You misunderstand me. In the example I gave, both developers serve the repository. Both developers connect to the other. It's peer to peer. A -- origin --> B A <-- origin -- B
    - rcme 3y ago
      Ok, good point.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
thefroh 3y ago
I think it is more that no server side setup is needed beyond git to support this. That's to say regardless of the hosted git provider you may be using, they do not need special support for git-appraise. As an aside, if I remember correctly you can also run git without any server at all with multiple contributors. But it isn't the most ergonomic!
- rcme 3y ago
  Yes, I agree that's probably what they meant. And it's a good feature. But it's also not really decentralized. Git, in my opinion, can be decentralized. You can run git locally and get lots of benefits even if you don't use collaboration. Version history and branching being two such examples. But you can't really get any benefits from code review without a centralized place to pass the reviews through.
  - predictabl3 3y ago
    So because of your limited imagination or usage (or ignorance) of Git, this is "stupid" and "useless". Mmmmk. Yes, virtually any decentralized technology can be used in a way that looks like centralization. But as a doctor might suggest, stop doing, to yourself, the thing that hurts. The fact is, it's entirely possible to use git-appraise without a "centralized git server" just like it is possible to use... decentralized git precisely in such a manner. Moreover, I can pretty much guarantee that whatever you think "really decentralized" would look like, could be used in basically the exact same ways as git-appraise. What does it even mean for something to be decentralized if you're talking about using it on a single machine, with a single user? I just can't man, I can't.
- Izkata 3y ago
  Yep, you can push and pull directly to/from another person as long as it's not pushing to a branch they currently have checked out (and of course you have read/write access).