3 ms·

It is starkly funny that Git was designed to be decentralized, a lot like this, and statistically nobody uses it that way.

by jrm4 3y ago

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Deukhoofd 3y ago
Well, Git is decentralized, and most people do use it as such. It's just that the entire infrastructure around it is not. Metadata such as creating, viewing, and managing issues and pull requests generally fall outside of Git itself.
quectophoton 3y ago
As of today I can send you a pull request through HN, even. Hey, I fixed some typos, you can pull from `https://example.com/repo.git`, branch `typos`. Cheers! There, done. I just made a pull request. Now you can just: git pull https://example.com/repo.git typos Sure, a web-based interface for code review (like what GitHub has) is a nice addition on top of pull requests, especially for back and forth conversation[1]. The code review part doesn't necessarily need to be web stuff. It also doesn't need to be email patches, because just because it's not web doesn't mean it has to be email. Hopefully these ActivityPub initiatives make it more obvious that this is a false dichotomy, and that pull requests and code review are different things. Like, for example, maybe my repo is hosted in a cgit instance, but I can review (and respond to) your suggested changes from nvim, and you receive the comments through ActivityPub. Just because I don't publicly display code review comments on my website doesn't mean you can't use Forgejo on your side as usual. [1]: Though you can leave inline comments in your repo's branch, and I can read them with `git diff` on my side, fix them, do another push, and then you'll see the fixes when you do your next pull.
- LoganDark 3y ago
  Yeah, "pull request" used to be the term for an actual, just, normal, request for someone to pull your changes into their branch. GitHub turned it into a marketing term.
Zambyte 3y ago
> and statistically nobody uses it that way. Git cannot be used in any other way. When you clone a repository, you make a new repository, with references to the previous one that can optionally be interacted with (pull, push, etc). Unfortunately git hosting and communication related to git repositories (merge requests, issues) have become almost completely centralized over time, but those are mostly outside of git itself, even in the traditional model (HTTP, SMTP).
- jrm4 3y ago
  But you know what I mean; there's nearly zero actual teams who use git outside of a centralized thing.
  - broodbucket 3y ago
    This is just absolutely not true. The Linux kernel is the biggest example but there's a lot of large, very important projects that aren't dependent on centralised forges for development.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

It is starkly funny that Git was designed to be decentralized, a lot like this, and statistically nobody uses it that way.

by jrm4 3y ago

It is starkly funny that Git was designed to be decentralized, a lot like this, and statistically nobody uses it that way.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Deukhoofd 3y ago

Well, Git is decentralized, and most people do use it as such. It's just that the entire infrastructure around it is not. Metadata such as creating, viewing, and managing issues and pull requests generally fall outside of Git itself.

quectophoton 3y ago

As of today I can send you a pull request through HN, even. Hey, I fixed some typos, you can pull from `https://example.com/repo.git`, branch `typos`. Cheers! There, done. I just made a pull request. Now you can just: git pull https://example.com/repo.git typos Sure, a web-based interface for code review (like what GitHub has) is a nice addition on top of pull requests, especially for back and forth conversation[1]. The code review part doesn't necessarily need to be web stuff. It also doesn't need to be email patches, because just because it's not web doesn't mean it has to be email. Hopefully these ActivityPub initiatives make it more obvious that this is a false dichotomy, and that pull requests and code review are different things. Like, for example, maybe my repo is hosted in a cgit instance, but I can review (and respond to) your suggested changes from nvim, and you receive the comments through ActivityPub. Just because I don't publicly display code review comments on my website doesn't mean you can't use Forgejo on your side as usual. [1]: Though you can leave inline comments in your repo's branch, and I can read them with `git diff` on my side, fix them, do another push, and then you'll see the fixes when you do your next pull.

LoganDark 3y ago
Yeah, "pull request" used to be the term for an actual, just, normal, request for someone to pull your changes into their branch. GitHub turned it into a marketing term.

Zambyte 3y ago

> and statistically nobody uses it that way. Git cannot be used in any other way. When you clone a repository, you make a new repository, with references to the previous one that can optionally be interacted with (pull, push, etc). Unfortunately git hosting and communication related to git repositories (merge requests, issues) have become almost completely centralized over time, but those are mostly outside of git itself, even in the traditional model (HTTP, SMTP).

jrm4 3y ago
But you know what I mean; there's nearly zero actual teams who use git outside of a centralized thing.
- broodbucket 3y ago
  This is just absolutely not true. The Linux kernel is the biggest example but there's a lot of large, very important projects that aren't dependent on centralised forges for development.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]