3 ms·

> You need centralization (or at the very least, a standard) for that. We have a standard! It’s this great decentralized VCS called git. For most of the stuff

> You need centralization (or at the very least, a standard) for that. We have a standard! It’s this great decentralized VCS called git. For most of the stuff integrations do, they’re just showing code or commits — both of which are readily available in a copy of the repo. Probably the one thing that’s missing is a standardized webhook system so that your git repo storage could tell integrations when stuff changes. Though even that isn’t strictly necessary if the integrations keep a copy of the repo up to date.

bmitc 1mo ago
Git is absolutely miserable without things that GitHub, GitLab, and others provide, and there's still a huge ceiling to grow into in terms of layering on UX on top of Git. In my opinion, Git is holding software development back. Git only cares about lines of text. This is not enough in today's world.
- throwatdem12311 1mo ago
  Other version control systems exist. It’s not git’s fault that people can’t be bothered to use the appropriate tool. And I say this as a certified git hater.
- conartist6 1mo ago
  > Git only cares about lines of text. This is not enough in today's world. I'm working on git-inspired VCS based on syntax tree nodes stored in prolly trees. Might that be enough? I've not 100% locked down the format yet, but tentatively it looks like this: https://gist.github.com/conartist6/7dd40697140965ee343de93b9a47eabc https://gist.github.com/conartist6/7dd40697140965ee343de93b9...
- a2ff6eeb0 1mo ago
  Why not? LLMs also only care about lines of text.
- mikeocool 1mo ago
  Lots of standards are terrible without the actual tools on top of them (try making an HTTP request with just a network socket). But that doesn’t mean we should have single centralized tool that does everything. I’d posit there’s no big loss if you broke these things up and each had their own copy the repo (if needed): - CI/CD - issues - code review/pull requests - release artifact distribution - discovery+social credit for open source You could host your repo on any dumb storage somewhere that speaks git+ssh or git+https and each tool could pull from there.
  - rewgs 1mo ago
    Completely agree. Once again, the answer is protocols, not platforms.
    - dineshmendhe 1mo ago
      [dead]

bmitc 1mo ago

Git is absolutely miserable without things that GitHub, GitLab, and others provide, and there's still a huge ceiling to grow into in terms of layering on UX on top of Git. In my opinion, Git is holding software development back. Git only cares about lines of text. This is not enough in today's world.

throwatdem12311 1mo ago
Other version control systems exist. It’s not git’s fault that people can’t be bothered to use the appropriate tool. And I say this as a certified git hater.
conartist6 1mo ago
> Git only cares about lines of text. This is not enough in today's world. I'm working on git-inspired VCS based on syntax tree nodes stored in prolly trees. Might that be enough? I've not 100% locked down the format yet, but tentatively it looks like this: https://gist.github.com/conartist6/7dd40697140965ee343de93b9a47eabc https://gist.github.com/conartist6/7dd40697140965ee343de93b9...
a2ff6eeb0 1mo ago
Why not? LLMs also only care about lines of text.
mikeocool 1mo ago
Lots of standards are terrible without the actual tools on top of them (try making an HTTP request with just a network socket). But that doesn’t mean we should have single centralized tool that does everything. I’d posit there’s no big loss if you broke these things up and each had their own copy the repo (if needed): - CI/CD - issues - code review/pull requests - release artifact distribution - discovery+social credit for open source You could host your repo on any dumb storage somewhere that speaks git+ssh or git+https and each tool could pull from there.
- rewgs 1mo ago
  Completely agree. Once again, the answer is protocols, not platforms.
  - dineshmendhe 1mo ago
    [dead]