5 ms·

If only there was a decentralized system to allow version management of code.

by antoineMoPa 3y ago

fragmede 3y ago
You'd still need some sort of centralized... hub to communicate and manage things.
- rglullis 3y ago
  Like the internet itself?
  - uncomputation 3y ago
    The internet is not centralized. It is literally the largest decentralized network in existence. A network of networks with no central hub.
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      Oh so you haven't heard of Cloudflare?
      - rglullis 3y ago
        Cloudflare, AWS, Azure, Google Cloud and Whatever-is-used-by-China: people make fun of the IBM guy who said "the world has a market for maybe 5 computers", but he was right all along...
- agilob 3y ago
  git on ipfs and issues stored in a literally plaintext file
- asdff 3y ago
  Why do you need a centralized hub? Most repos on github are entirely unrelated to eachother. Repos can be self hosted. Issues can be tracked on your own website. You don't need a megacorp to run a website. If you are writing open source tooling you are more than qualified to roll your own here.
dleslie 3y ago
Sadly, GitHub doesn't store its value-add assets within the repository itself; so all of the PR conversations, Gists, Issues, and so forth aren't within git itself.
- davisr 3y ago
  That's by-design, and it's why no one should ever use Microsoft GitHub -- because you don't own your data, Microsoft does.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    It's the way the open source options work too (GitLab, Gitea, Forgejo), and they don't have any sinister motive for that—it's just easier to build that way.
    - dleslie 3y ago
      There's git-bug, which is in-repo. https://github.com/MichaelMure/git-bug/ https://github.com/MichaelMure/git-bug/
- layer8 3y ago
  Very good reason not to use those, if they are critical to your business.
- crdrost 3y ago
  This speaks to one of my secret desires, I've worked at a bunch of small companies now where the workflows were all ad-hoc and I feel like even at bigger companies there are persistent failures to "understand Git"... one of the most pernicious being that, most companies have a modernist "this is prod, it is one place running one codebase" approach, Git is postmodernist "here is this project, there are many branches showing different perspectives on what this code could be", most CI/CD systems in my opinion sit at the interface between these and choose the wrong side to be on, they choose the Git side -- "we ask every branch, 'do you want to deploy yourself to prod?' and if it says yes by virtue of having a CI.yaml file with a branch filter naming itself to be run, then we deploy it to prod." So what I want is kind of to build a company that's just strongly opinionated about that... "everything is in one Git repository, the `main` branch is authoritative for ACLs and CI/CD config, the bugtracker writes issues directly into that repository and has an ACL role that allows it to do that, the RFC widget writes your code design docs directly in there as well, we do rebase but we merge without fast-forwarding, you have to use semver and it works like this..." and probably nobody will use our offering because "GitHub is more trustworthy" but "if anybody does they'll love us" haha
__MatrixMan__ 3y ago
I realize you're talking about git, but I think it's also pretty important to have a place where users can submit issues and dev's can say "it's fixed in version XYZ", these are not features of git. I've been meaning to give radicle a try.
- chupapimunyenyo 3y ago
  [flagged]
- miki123211 3y ago
  Fossil does this within the repo, maybe we need a way for Git to do so too.
  - __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
    Rather than making it a feature of git, it would probably be sufficient to have a tool that packed issues and PRs from the forge into the repo (in preparation to be migrated) and then unpacked them into the forge's API on the other side.
    - miki123211 3y ago
      This isn't what Fossil does. Fossil lets you synchronize artifacts both ways, so you can clone a repo, participate in discussions when on a plane, write some replies, connect back to the internet and sync them back up to the server. When your server goes down, you don't lose anything. There's no need to remember to back up your issues every day, every time you clone the repo, you also clone its tickets, forum, wiki etc.
  - Ayesh 3y ago
    ... Or use Fossil?
    - miki123211 3y ago
      Fossil doesn't have a good story around cross-repo authentication (without separate per-repo accounts), CI/CD, 2FA, SSO support and such. It's a great tool if you're writing a single personal project with little regard for security, but that's about it.

If only there was a decentralized system to allow version management of code.

fragmede 3y ago

You'd still need some sort of centralized... hub to communicate and manage things.

rglullis 3y ago
Like the internet itself?
- uncomputation 3y ago
  The internet is not centralized. It is literally the largest decentralized network in existence. A network of networks with no central hub.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    Oh so you haven't heard of Cloudflare?
    - rglullis 3y ago
      Cloudflare, AWS, Azure, Google Cloud and Whatever-is-used-by-China: people make fun of the IBM guy who said "the world has a market for maybe 5 computers", but he was right all along...
agilob 3y ago
git on ipfs and issues stored in a literally plaintext file
asdff 3y ago
Why do you need a centralized hub? Most repos on github are entirely unrelated to eachother. Repos can be self hosted. Issues can be tracked on your own website. You don't need a megacorp to run a website. If you are writing open source tooling you are more than qualified to roll your own here.

dleslie 3y ago

Sadly, GitHub doesn't store its value-add assets within the repository itself; so all of the PR conversations, Gists, Issues, and so forth aren't within git itself.

davisr 3y ago
That's by-design, and it's why no one should ever use Microsoft GitHub -- because you don't own your data, Microsoft does.
- lolinder 3y ago
  It's the way the open source options work too (GitLab, Gitea, Forgejo), and they don't have any sinister motive for that—it's just easier to build that way.
  - dleslie 3y ago
    There's git-bug, which is in-repo. https://github.com/MichaelMure/git-bug/ https://github.com/MichaelMure/git-bug/
layer8 3y ago
Very good reason not to use those, if they are critical to your business.
crdrost 3y ago
This speaks to one of my secret desires, I've worked at a bunch of small companies now where the workflows were all ad-hoc and I feel like even at bigger companies there are persistent failures to "understand Git"... one of the most pernicious being that, most companies have a modernist "this is prod, it is one place running one codebase" approach, Git is postmodernist "here is this project, there are many branches showing different perspectives on what this code could be", most CI/CD systems in my opinion sit at the interface between these and choose the wrong side to be on, they choose the Git side -- "we ask every branch, 'do you want to deploy yourself to prod?' and if it says yes by virtue of having a CI.yaml file with a branch filter naming itself to be run, then we deploy it to prod." So what I want is kind of to build a company that's just strongly opinionated about that... "everything is in one Git repository, the `main` branch is authoritative for ACLs and CI/CD config, the bugtracker writes issues directly into that repository and has an ACL role that allows it to do that, the RFC widget writes your code design docs directly in there as well, we do rebase but we merge without fast-forwarding, you have to use semver and it works like this..." and probably nobody will use our offering because "GitHub is more trustworthy" but "if anybody does they'll love us" haha

__MatrixMan__ 3y ago

I realize you're talking about git, but I think it's also pretty important to have a place where users can submit issues and dev's can say "it's fixed in version XYZ", these are not features of git. I've been meaning to give radicle a try.

chupapimunyenyo 3y ago
[flagged]
miki123211 3y ago
Fossil does this within the repo, maybe we need a way for Git to do so too.
- __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
  Rather than making it a feature of git, it would probably be sufficient to have a tool that packed issues and PRs from the forge into the repo (in preparation to be migrated) and then unpacked them into the forge's API on the other side.
  - miki123211 3y ago
    This isn't what Fossil does. Fossil lets you synchronize artifacts both ways, so you can clone a repo, participate in discussions when on a plane, write some replies, connect back to the internet and sync them back up to the server. When your server goes down, you don't lose anything. There's no need to remember to back up your issues every day, every time you clone the repo, you also clone its tickets, forum, wiki etc.
- Ayesh 3y ago
  ... Or use Fossil?
  - miki123211 3y ago
    Fossil doesn't have a good story around cross-repo authentication (without separate per-repo accounts), CI/CD, 2FA, SSO support and such. It's a great tool if you're writing a single personal project with little regard for security, but that's about it.