What we need is some sort of distributed version control system.
I’m not quite sure how it will work yet, but it would have the entire codebase and its history mirrored onto every developer’s computer. Instead of requiring a central repository, developers could share their changes directly with each other.
Git is already a “distributed version control system” that does exactly what I’ve described. On the other hand, relying on centralized systems such as GitHub means that the “distributed” nature of it doesn’t make it any more resilient to failure.
git itself is really not far from a blockhain. Blockchain is fine, it only has a bad rep because of ponzi schemes that use it to create crypto, but the technology and trustless consensus mechanisms are interesting.
I think blockchain also has a bad rep because every chance is mirrored to every copy of the blockchain? Thus wasting a lot of power and bandwidth for most use cases. Unlike git, where you only push what you want, and everyone only pulls what they want.
The waste of power is often associated to the proof of work consensus, but that’s not a requirement of blockchain. There are other ways to create consensus.
The bandwidth requirements really depend on what’s being stored, but it’s usually very manageable for a server. And clients not running validation don’t need to store or transfer that much data.
but seriously, we need project management features that are decentralized: issue tracking, kanban, code reviews w/ comments, and ways to extend functionality without relying on a git forge.
You could create a git branch with an unrelated history to store this type of data; either as plaintext, md or something more sophisticated for dedicated tools. The biggest hurdle would probably be to define and agree on a standardized format
The last thing I want is merge conflicts in my issue tracker. The git data model is simply not right for conversational histories.
ActivityPub is the obvious solution to decentralize public communication. We’re using it right now and AFAIK Forgejo is working to implement it for their issue tracker.
We need better distributed connectivity. It wouldn’t be that hard to build a project management system (issues, etc) on top of Git, but DVCS only gets you so far without a way to connect directly to the other contributors.
What we need is some sort of distributed version control system.
I’m not quite sure how it will work yet, but it would have the entire codebase and its history mirrored onto every developer’s computer. Instead of requiring a central repository, developers could share their changes directly with each other.
Linus Torvalds is probably clever enough to create something like that. The Linux kernel sure could take advantage of it.
Is this sarcasm about git/svn or are you serious?
It was mostly a joke/irony.
Git is already a “distributed version control system” that does exactly what I’ve described. On the other hand, relying on centralized systems such as GitHub means that the “distributed” nature of it doesn’t make it any more resilient to failure.
Federated git hosting platform when?
Google forgefed
Maybe something on the blockchain??
JK JK don’t burn me on the public place!!
git itself is really not far from a blockhain. Blockchain is fine, it only has a bad rep because of ponzi schemes that use it to create crypto, but the technology and trustless consensus mechanisms are interesting.
I think blockchain also has a bad rep because every chance is mirrored to every copy of the blockchain? Thus wasting a lot of power and bandwidth for most use cases. Unlike git, where you only push what you want, and everyone only pulls what they want.
The waste of power is often associated to the proof of work consensus, but that’s not a requirement of blockchain. There are other ways to create consensus.
The bandwidth requirements really depend on what’s being stored, but it’s usually very manageable for a server. And clients not running validation don’t need to store or transfer that much data.
but seriously, we need project management features that are decentralized: issue tracking, kanban, code reviews w/ comments, and ways to extend functionality without relying on a git forge.
For issues tracking there’s the venerable git-bug, although development has sadly slowed way down in the last years.
And I am always jealous of the way fossil repositories just have a complete front-end and wiki baked in, would love something like that for git.
Would be cool to see those as extensions to Git. Surely they could just be more Git objects?
I wonder how exactly Forgejo’s planned federation will work…
Based in activitypub. You should be able to follow a repo with mastodon or Lemmy and then see ticket updates for example.
But it’s far in the fuyure
Nice, unfortunate that it seems so distant though
You could create a git branch with an unrelated history to store this type of data; either as plaintext, md or something more sophisticated for dedicated tools. The biggest hurdle would probably be to define and agree on a standardized format
The last thing I want is merge conflicts in my issue tracker. The git data model is simply not right for conversational histories.
ActivityPub is the obvious solution to decentralize public communication. We’re using it right now and AFAIK Forgejo is working to implement it for their issue tracker.
Oh god kanban
Snd with relying on cloudflare
Don’t be a trachers pet lol, let us enjoy a lil time off thanks to github
https://radicle.xyz/ seems to be this
Ah yeah we called that zip files and Dropbox. I don’t miss it.
Im joking of course.
We need better distributed connectivity. It wouldn’t be that hard to build a project management system (issues, etc) on top of Git, but DVCS only gets you so far without a way to connect directly to the other contributors.
IPFS git?
deleted by creator