3 ms·

Would a P2P version of GitHub make sense? Each outward-facing local repo would provide a GitHub-like interface for browsing code, submitting PRs etc., and would

Would a P2P version of GitHub make sense? Each outward-facing local repo would provide a GitHub-like interface for browsing code, submitting PRs etc., and would in addition route repo search requests to neighboring repos using something like a Gnutella protocol.

curun1r 12y ago
I don't think that would work well...Github has too much momentum. But I think open protocols and folding more of the functionality that has been proven out at Github into the core SCM could have a very positive impact. To start with, pull requests could be implemented in the main git tool. They're no longer experimental and many, if not most, git users rely in them in some form or another (Github, Gitlab and BitBucket all support them). Folding them into the core would just standardize all the implementations. It would also be good to define protocols for collaboration. Off the top of my head, that could mean a fork:// browser protocol that would allow a BitBucket user to fork a Github repository and seamlessly submit pull requests back upstream. Some of that is possible today, but there would be some new requirements around federated authentication to enable this (i.e. how to allow a user who is registered with a different service to create a pull request). If the mechanics of interoperability are standardized, people will develop competitors to Github and things will get more decentralized. But, as mentioned above, Github has a lot of momentum and no incentive to cooperate with other providers. The only way they're really forced to work with others is if these changes and standards are coming from the core Git project.
biomechanica 12y ago
Well, there was a project called GitChain*; however, it seems that the project is looking for a new leader. Was a very cool idea. -> http://gitchain.org http://gitchain.org
paulannesley 12y ago
Lightweight but great for LANs like the Rails Camp that it was built for: https://github.com/toolmantim/bananajour https://github.com/toolmantim/bananajour

curun1r 12y ago

I don't think that would work well...Github has too much momentum. But I think open protocols and folding more of the functionality that has been proven out at Github into the core SCM could have a very positive impact. To start with, pull requests could be implemented in the main git tool. They're no longer experimental and many, if not most, git users rely in them in some form or another (Github, Gitlab and BitBucket all support them). Folding them into the core would just standardize all the implementations. It would also be good to define protocols for collaboration. Off the top of my head, that could mean a fork:// browser protocol that would allow a BitBucket user to fork a Github repository and seamlessly submit pull requests back upstream. Some of that is possible today, but there would be some new requirements around federated authentication to enable this (i.e. how to allow a user who is registered with a different service to create a pull request). If the mechanics of interoperability are standardized, people will develop competitors to Github and things will get more decentralized. But, as mentioned above, Github has a lot of momentum and no incentive to cooperate with other providers. The only way they're really forced to work with others is if these changes and standards are coming from the core Git project.

biomechanica 12y ago

Well, there was a project called GitChain*; however, it seems that the project is looking for a new leader. Was a very cool idea. -> http://gitchain.org http://gitchain.org

paulannesley 12y ago

Lightweight but great for LANs like the Rails Camp that it was built for: https://github.com/toolmantim/bananajour https://github.com/toolmantim/bananajour