5 ms·

Let me guess, we need a fediverse solution or source code now?

by SirMaster 3y ago

throwup238 3y ago
Web 3.0 for code. Not your keys, not your repo!
shadowgovt 3y ago
Maybe not, but this is a decent time to remind everyone to local-cache all your dependencies.
ForHackernews 3y ago
Git is already a distributed VCS. Just host someplace other than Github, honestly.
- jenadine 3y ago
  Putting the source somewhere else: easy, git push and change the URL in your doc. Moving all the issues: hopefully someone must have done a script to fetch the issue and convert them. Moving your CI: just rewrite your GitHub action away from these horrible yaml command. This is just going to be a bit more expensive than the 100% free GitHub plan. Getting the community of millions of user that can report issues, propose PR and star your repository. Good luck with that. The network effect of the community is the barrier to the change. Unless you do proprietary software, then you don't care.
  - ForHackernews 3y ago
    > Getting the community of millions of user that can report issues, propose PR and star your repository. Good luck with that. Oh my stars! The network effect of "the community" is the worst part of Github. Your life and your project will be much better without whiny entitled people spamming the same issues expecting free support, and endless "i got an error" bug reports.
AvieDeckard 3y ago
Git is already decentralized. So no, we don't need a fediverse equivalent. Crazy idea, but what if you hosted your code on your infrastructure, like the "old days"? Or, move to an independent forge, or stay where you are. The concern isn't about GitHub directly, but that everyone storing all their source code in one place is concerning. Git is flexible. I'm kind of surprised at how ubiquitous GitHub is given how easy it is to host your own repositories and set up a mailing list to accept patches and discussion on.
- BadHumans 3y ago
  Self hosting is painful and not a real solution for most people. Mailing list also have terrible UX. I'd rather risk Github nuking all of my 50 or so repos than work over a mailing list.
- throwaway894345 3y ago
  As much as I love doing things myself, the reality is that I spend wayyyy more time doing things myself than I save, and time is my main constraint. Getting booted off of GitHub would be a pretty minor inconvenience compared to the time sink of doing it myself, especially if I botch something and lose data. > Git is flexible. I'm kind of surprised at how ubiquitous GitHub is given how easy it is to host your own repositories and set up a mailing list to accept patches and discussion on. The UX you're proposing is far worse than what GitHub provides for less effort, and anyway GitHub isn't just "repo hosting + code review", you also get web hooks, CI, user/org management, code search (such as it is), a web interface (as well as mobile app), etc. And you don't have to teach people how to use it effectively.
samatman 3y ago
It exists: https://radicle.xyz https://radicle.xyz, but it doesn't really get used. I think gittorrent was the right name for the concept, really, hard to beat that. But that one withered on the vine: https://github.com/cjb/GitTorrent https://github.com/cjb/GitTorrent
sterlind 3y ago
I can't tell if you're being ironic, but Git is already federated. Like, GitHub should be just another remote, and which remote happens to be the source of truth is a policy decision. The sticky part are the value-add, non-Git parts like GitHub actions, the issue tracker, wiki, static hosting, access management etc. But most of those are orthogonal and federating them (perhaps as git repos themselves) seems like a good idea. (disclaimer: work for MS, not on GitHub, also hi again superkuh)

Let me guess, we need a fediverse solution or source code now?

throwup238 3y ago

Web 3.0 for code. Not your keys, not your repo!

shadowgovt 3y ago

Maybe not, but this is a decent time to remind everyone to local-cache all your dependencies.

ForHackernews 3y ago

Git is already a distributed VCS. Just host someplace other than Github, honestly.

jenadine 3y ago
Putting the source somewhere else: easy, git push and change the URL in your doc. Moving all the issues: hopefully someone must have done a script to fetch the issue and convert them. Moving your CI: just rewrite your GitHub action away from these horrible yaml command. This is just going to be a bit more expensive than the 100% free GitHub plan. Getting the community of millions of user that can report issues, propose PR and star your repository. Good luck with that. The network effect of the community is the barrier to the change. Unless you do proprietary software, then you don't care.
- ForHackernews 3y ago
  > Getting the community of millions of user that can report issues, propose PR and star your repository. Good luck with that. Oh my stars! The network effect of "the community" is the worst part of Github. Your life and your project will be much better without whiny entitled people spamming the same issues expecting free support, and endless "i got an error" bug reports.

AvieDeckard 3y ago

Git is already decentralized. So no, we don't need a fediverse equivalent. Crazy idea, but what if you hosted your code on your infrastructure, like the "old days"? Or, move to an independent forge, or stay where you are. The concern isn't about GitHub directly, but that everyone storing all their source code in one place is concerning. Git is flexible. I'm kind of surprised at how ubiquitous GitHub is given how easy it is to host your own repositories and set up a mailing list to accept patches and discussion on.

BadHumans 3y ago
Self hosting is painful and not a real solution for most people. Mailing list also have terrible UX. I'd rather risk Github nuking all of my 50 or so repos than work over a mailing list.
throwaway894345 3y ago
As much as I love doing things myself, the reality is that I spend wayyyy more time doing things myself than I save, and time is my main constraint. Getting booted off of GitHub would be a pretty minor inconvenience compared to the time sink of doing it myself, especially if I botch something and lose data. > Git is flexible. I'm kind of surprised at how ubiquitous GitHub is given how easy it is to host your own repositories and set up a mailing list to accept patches and discussion on. The UX you're proposing is far worse than what GitHub provides for less effort, and anyway GitHub isn't just "repo hosting + code review", you also get web hooks, CI, user/org management, code search (such as it is), a web interface (as well as mobile app), etc. And you don't have to teach people how to use it effectively.

samatman 3y ago

It exists: https://radicle.xyz https://radicle.xyz, but it doesn't really get used. I think gittorrent was the right name for the concept, really, hard to beat that. But that one withered on the vine: https://github.com/cjb/GitTorrent https://github.com/cjb/GitTorrent

sterlind 3y ago

I can't tell if you're being ironic, but Git is already federated. Like, GitHub should be just another remote, and which remote happens to be the source of truth is a policy decision. The sticky part are the value-add, non-Git parts like GitHub actions, the issue tracker, wiki, static hosting, access management etc. But most of those are orthogonal and federating them (perhaps as git repos themselves) seems like a good idea. (disclaimer: work for MS, not on GitHub, also hi again superkuh)