3 ms·

Luckily we already have a distributed version control system that can take over github: https://fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/index.wiki https://fossil-scm.

by noosphr 1mo ago

Luckily we already have a distributed version control system that can take over github: https://fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/index.wiki https://fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/index.wiki I suppose people can use git too if they ever figure out how to send emails from a dedicated client.

AlexandrB 1mo ago
> Luckily we already have a distributed version control system that can take over github Surprised that this wasn't just a link to Git. The biggest benefit of Git over predecessors was that it enabled decentralization. Github re-centralized the common case for the sake of convenience.
- jeremyjh 1mo ago
  Yes but on Earth every project needs a canonical main branch. Most also need a way to manage and review changes to that branch that all project members have direct access to.
  - Sanzig 1mo ago
    Gitea (and its popular fork, Forgejo) are very lightweight. You can easily stand up an instance on a cheap VPS.
    - jeremyjh 1mo ago
      Agreed. Just moved some of my projects to codefloe.com (Forgejo) this weekend. FYI - it provides a lot more than a link to git.
  - skydhash 1mo ago
    It's on the project to decide which is canonical and export a read only accessible version. Change review only requires a communication medium (the patches are mostly plain text) and that can be done in a lot of way. As for merging those changes, it's an organizational issue.
    - jeremyjh 1mo ago
      If it’s on the project to determine their requirements, why are you doing it?
- poisonborz 1mo ago
  Github and other providers before proved that git itself is just a small part of managing code, there's a lot more needed for a full workflow, and it's meaningful for it all to be tightly coupled.
- Arubis 1mo ago
  > "Crypto had attracted grifters from the beginning, even though its most respected figures were more interested in changing the world. As Silicon Valley investors piled in after them, they wanted to fund companies that would become essential to the crypto economy, allowing them to make vast amounts of money. Entrepreneur after entrepreneur discovered that the best way to turn a profit in a decentralized economy was to figure out ways to centralize parts of it again." (Henry Farrell, Underground Empire)
- Xirdus 1mo ago
  The biggest benefits of Git over predecessors were branching, 3-way merge, and history rewrites (in particular, rebase and squash). As much as Git fans wanted decentralization to be a major selling point, decentralization has never been a major selling point.
  - prerok 1mo ago
    Not exactly decentralization but distribution was the main selling point. In comparison to SVN and other non-DVCs git did not need to continuously talk to the central server for history, "branch" creations, unlocking/locking files before changes, etc. Linus wanted a DVCS, but they wanted centralization and licenses were expensive, so he decided to launch the git initiative where he provided scaffolding and the rest came from contributions.
    - Xirdus 1mo ago
      It was a selling point. Maybe even intended selling point. But it absolutely isn't the main selling point. Never was, never will. The big thing, the reason people ever started talking about Git outside Linux dev team, has always been branches. It's branches, not distribution, that made every SVN user in the world abandon it in exchange for Git. Saying distribution has been more important than branching is like saying automobiles replaced horses because of smell. Which, admittedly, was a big problem with horses, but come on.
      - prerok 1mo ago
        It seems our experiences are different. Back then, when working with SVN, we had sites in various countries, with under provisioned VPNs between them. Loading up a single file history could take 15 minutes. I am not joking. Every single operation took ages, so really, any DVCS would have won in that situation, regardless of its approach to branches. If the SVN server would sit in the same building then I guess the branching would have been the main selling point, but it was not the main selling point for us in that situation.
  - AlexandrB 1mo ago
MoreQARespect 1mo ago
There are plenty of alternatives for git hosting. The last thing which needs to be migrated before we get an exodus off this vibe coded monstrosity is reputation (i.e. github stars) which are inherently sticky.
- ryandrake 1mo ago
  Git doesn't even need to be "hosted" anywhere. That's the point of it being distributed. What needs to be hosted somewhere are all the barnacles (like issue tracking, code reviewing, CI, and so on) that have grown out around git, that people and businesses have become dependent on.
  - seanc 1mo ago
    Which is why they cleverly moved the central story of a software change from the commit to the PR. Commits migrate automatically with the repo. But migrating PR descriptions and comments takes engineering effort.
    - kortex 1mo ago
      Rhetorically, why can't folks add the feature of PRs to Git? Git is fundamentally just a graph manipulation engine and data structure. It would just be another object type, in a layer which sits above the normal commit graph. Obviously there is no "just make X" in software, but this feels reasonably achievable, and would have tremendous benefit for the cost.
      - pwdisswordfishq 1mo ago
        https://git-scm.com/docs/git-request-pull https://git-scm.com/docs/git-request-pull
    - dannyw 1mo ago
      Where would you put comments then? Sure, there’s always mailing lists, but even so, someone still has to host Mailman. I do think GitHub has positively contributed to the software industry and open source. It’s been enshittified for sure, but it has had a golden era.
graemep 1mo ago
I like Fossil, but there are good reasons to use git too. There are many git hosting options, including some for self hosting. its a lot easier to switch to a different version control host than to a different version control system.
rbanffy 1mo ago
We had Launchpad before Github (IIRC).

by noosphr 1mo ago

AlexandrB 1mo ago

> Luckily we already have a distributed version control system that can take over github Surprised that this wasn't just a link to Git. The biggest benefit of Git over predecessors was that it enabled decentralization. Github re-centralized the common case for the sake of convenience.

jeremyjh 1mo ago
Yes but on Earth every project needs a canonical main branch. Most also need a way to manage and review changes to that branch that all project members have direct access to.
- Sanzig 1mo ago
  Gitea (and its popular fork, Forgejo) are very lightweight. You can easily stand up an instance on a cheap VPS.
  - jeremyjh 1mo ago
    Agreed. Just moved some of my projects to codefloe.com (Forgejo) this weekend. FYI - it provides a lot more than a link to git.
- skydhash 1mo ago
  It's on the project to decide which is canonical and export a read only accessible version. Change review only requires a communication medium (the patches are mostly plain text) and that can be done in a lot of way. As for merging those changes, it's an organizational issue.
  - jeremyjh 1mo ago
    If it’s on the project to determine their requirements, why are you doing it?
poisonborz 1mo ago
Github and other providers before proved that git itself is just a small part of managing code, there's a lot more needed for a full workflow, and it's meaningful for it all to be tightly coupled.
Arubis 1mo ago
> "Crypto had attracted grifters from the beginning, even though its most respected figures were more interested in changing the world. As Silicon Valley investors piled in after them, they wanted to fund companies that would become essential to the crypto economy, allowing them to make vast amounts of money. Entrepreneur after entrepreneur discovered that the best way to turn a profit in a decentralized economy was to figure out ways to centralize parts of it again." (Henry Farrell, Underground Empire)
Xirdus 1mo ago
The biggest benefits of Git over predecessors were branching, 3-way merge, and history rewrites (in particular, rebase and squash). As much as Git fans wanted decentralization to be a major selling point, decentralization has never been a major selling point.
- prerok 1mo ago
  Not exactly decentralization but distribution was the main selling point. In comparison to SVN and other non-DVCs git did not need to continuously talk to the central server for history, "branch" creations, unlocking/locking files before changes, etc. Linus wanted a DVCS, but they wanted centralization and licenses were expensive, so he decided to launch the git initiative where he provided scaffolding and the rest came from contributions.
  - Xirdus 1mo ago
    It was a selling point. Maybe even intended selling point. But it absolutely isn't the main selling point. Never was, never will. The big thing, the reason people ever started talking about Git outside Linux dev team, has always been branches. It's branches, not distribution, that made every SVN user in the world abandon it in exchange for Git. Saying distribution has been more important than branching is like saying automobiles replaced horses because of smell. Which, admittedly, was a big problem with horses, but come on.
    - prerok 1mo ago
      It seems our experiences are different. Back then, when working with SVN, we had sites in various countries, with under provisioned VPNs between them. Loading up a single file history could take 15 minutes. I am not joking. Every single operation took ages, so really, any DVCS would have won in that situation, regardless of its approach to branches. If the SVN server would sit in the same building then I guess the branching would have been the main selling point, but it was not the main selling point for us in that situation.
- AlexandrB 1mo ago

MoreQARespect 1mo ago

There are plenty of alternatives for git hosting. The last thing which needs to be migrated before we get an exodus off this vibe coded monstrosity is reputation (i.e. github stars) which are inherently sticky.

ryandrake 1mo ago
Git doesn't even need to be "hosted" anywhere. That's the point of it being distributed. What needs to be hosted somewhere are all the barnacles (like issue tracking, code reviewing, CI, and so on) that have grown out around git, that people and businesses have become dependent on.
- seanc 1mo ago
  Which is why they cleverly moved the central story of a software change from the commit to the PR. Commits migrate automatically with the repo. But migrating PR descriptions and comments takes engineering effort.
  - kortex 1mo ago
    Rhetorically, why can't folks add the feature of PRs to Git? Git is fundamentally just a graph manipulation engine and data structure. It would just be another object type, in a layer which sits above the normal commit graph. Obviously there is no "just make X" in software, but this feels reasonably achievable, and would have tremendous benefit for the cost.
    - pwdisswordfishq 1mo ago
      https://git-scm.com/docs/git-request-pull https://git-scm.com/docs/git-request-pull
  - dannyw 1mo ago
    Where would you put comments then? Sure, there’s always mailing lists, but even so, someone still has to host Mailman. I do think GitHub has positively contributed to the software industry and open source. It’s been enshittified for sure, but it has had a golden era.

graemep 1mo ago

I like Fossil, but there are good reasons to use git too. There are many git hosting options, including some for self hosting. its a lot easier to switch to a different version control host than to a different version control system.

rbanffy 1mo ago

We had Launchpad before Github (IIRC).