3 ms·

I have had my eye on these technologies for a while. Embedding the issue tracker and such in your git repo. Every day these make more and more sense. - https:/

I have had my eye on these technologies for a while. Embedding the issue tracker and such in your git repo. Every day these make more and more sense. - https://gitsocial.org/ https://gitsocial.org/ - https://radicle.dev/ https://radicle.dev/ - https://github.com/git-bug/git-bug https://github.com/git-bug/git-bug

jbaber 5mo ago
Exactly this. Even though I don't use git-bug anymore, I'm still a sponsor. I desperately want an issue-tracker-in-.git to become a standard. Issues and CI are the only lock-in. The latter is legitimate because you're using someone else's CPU, but every developer has the tooling to "git diff" and write comments if we could just agree on a format.
- dannyfritz07 5mo ago
  I have trouble wrapping my head around how to make it so the public can create an issue in your git repo.
  - Hendrikto 5mo ago
    They can clone the repo, make changes, and then push. On the server, you can have a hook that checks if the commit only contains appropriate issue changes, and apply just those. Sure, a little more complicated than “Create Issue”, but not that much for devs. We could even simplify the workflow with e.g. git-issue or something like that, similar to e.g. git-send-email. git issue init “There is a problem” git issue push git issue get 6 # short for issue@{6}
BTBurke 5mo ago
I made the decision to leave Github a couple months ago when I retired and started heavily working on personal projects. I like the idea of radicle and used it for a while, but it's complicated to set up and maintain if you want to run your own seed node and pin your personal projects. What I ended up with is a version of a static forge - Charm's soft-serve to host the repos and a forked version of the pico.sh pgit static site generator. I added git-bug integration to track issues in the repo and an alternative CLI to git-bug that works better when collaborating with agents. A static forge site is very resilient to bot traffic because it only renders a limited number of commits, instead of pathologically allowing a near infinite number of URLs for bots to crawl. https://kilimanjaro.io https://kilimanjaro.io if you want to see what it looks like.
- efrecon 5mo ago
  Indeed really quick and responsive
- sunshine-o 5mo ago
  I would agree with everything you say, but why not both? We are actually facing 2 distinct problems: - Github is a centralized, controlled git hosting, identity, collaboration platform. - Bots are attacking any public facing interface. So maybe the solution is: - to keep a Radicle node private/behind fences to lower the maintenance/security burden, with eventually access to selected collaborators. - publish the repos with a static site generator like pgit
philipwhiuk 5mo ago
I'm not a fan because it makes the change log mostly issue tracking and not actual changes. Using a separate Git repo with a defined naming structure I could appreciate. (e.g. gitrepo.org/project and gitrepo.org/project_issues )
Fizz43 5mo ago
Radicle is such a cool concept and seems to be working great. The only thing it needs is a better way to search through the projects hosted on each node.

jbaber 5mo ago

Exactly this. Even though I don't use git-bug anymore, I'm still a sponsor. I desperately want an issue-tracker-in-.git to become a standard. Issues and CI are the only lock-in. The latter is legitimate because you're using someone else's CPU, but every developer has the tooling to "git diff" and write comments if we could just agree on a format.

dannyfritz07 5mo ago
I have trouble wrapping my head around how to make it so the public can create an issue in your git repo.
- Hendrikto 5mo ago
  They can clone the repo, make changes, and then push. On the server, you can have a hook that checks if the commit only contains appropriate issue changes, and apply just those. Sure, a little more complicated than “Create Issue”, but not that much for devs. We could even simplify the workflow with e.g. git-issue or something like that, similar to e.g. git-send-email. git issue init “There is a problem” git issue push git issue get 6 # short for issue@{6}

BTBurke 5mo ago

I made the decision to leave Github a couple months ago when I retired and started heavily working on personal projects. I like the idea of radicle and used it for a while, but it's complicated to set up and maintain if you want to run your own seed node and pin your personal projects. What I ended up with is a version of a static forge - Charm's soft-serve to host the repos and a forked version of the pico.sh pgit static site generator. I added git-bug integration to track issues in the repo and an alternative CLI to git-bug that works better when collaborating with agents. A static forge site is very resilient to bot traffic because it only renders a limited number of commits, instead of pathologically allowing a near infinite number of URLs for bots to crawl. https://kilimanjaro.io https://kilimanjaro.io if you want to see what it looks like.

efrecon 5mo ago
Indeed really quick and responsive
sunshine-o 5mo ago
I would agree with everything you say, but why not both? We are actually facing 2 distinct problems: - Github is a centralized, controlled git hosting, identity, collaboration platform. - Bots are attacking any public facing interface. So maybe the solution is: - to keep a Radicle node private/behind fences to lower the maintenance/security burden, with eventually access to selected collaborators. - publish the repos with a static site generator like pgit

philipwhiuk 5mo ago

I'm not a fan because it makes the change log mostly issue tracking and not actual changes. Using a separate Git repo with a defined naming structure I could appreciate. (e.g. gitrepo.org/project and gitrepo.org/project_issues )

Fizz43 5mo ago

Radicle is such a cool concept and seems to be working great. The only thing it needs is a better way to search through the projects hosted on each node.