And for anyone interested in a template:

  • JargonWagon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Cleaned up the template a little and also removed the job role specifying “programmer” to make it even more of a flexible template:

  • iegod@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    10 hours ago

    I’ve not worked anywhere that didn’t own/maintain their own source control. Even privately I self host gitea.

    • shirro@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Git was designed specifically so people could work independently and not have to rely on a server. GitHub is not git. GitHub is an attempt to control the marketplace for code and exploit the network effects to lock people in and control them. It’s facebook and linkedn for programmers. We never needed that and many of us never wanted that.

      You can do distributed development with git without any centralised infrastructure. It’s what it was made for.

      • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        It was enshittified into that. A decade ago, it was a perfectly fine option for people that wanted a more convenient, hassle-free way to share and collaborate on code

  • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    12 hours ago

    I briefly wrote Blackberry apps circa 2010 (yes, I knew RIM was dying a quick death). The development process was insane: any module from the framework that you incorporated into your app had to be digitally signed by RIM servers every time you tried to compile your app and deploy it to a device, even if you had only made a one-line change to the code. On good days, this would make the compilation take 5-10 minutes; on bad days it would be upwards of an hour or never happen at all. Some wags had even set up a special website that would tell you whether the RIM servers were down or not (long gone now, of course). I got in the habit of making a large number of code changes before attempting to run and test stuff, which is obviously not the ideal way to do things but it certainly teaches you to be careful. It also make me think long and hard before including a new module into my code. As one example, for my GUI I needed to use trigonometry functions which were naturally (lol) part of one of the cryptography modules which took an especially long time to get signed. I ended up writing my own sin() function in Java just to avoid the hit of including that module.

    The great part of this was that I always had a ready-made excuse whenever I felt like taking a long lunch or going shopping or going home early. “Sorry boss, the signing server is down” and I made damn sure they never knew about isthesigningserverdown.com. It also helped that it was Blackberry circa 2010 and it didn’t make a shit bit of difference whether I got the app done or not.

  • sik0fewl@piefed.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

    • dan@upvote.au
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      53
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Linus Torvalds is probably clever enough to create something like that. The Linux kernel sure could take advantage of it.

      • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 day ago

        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.

        • mogranja@lemmy.eco.br
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 hours ago

          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.

          • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            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.

    • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • hoppolito@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        22 hours ago

        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.

      • sik0fewl@piefed.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 day ago

        Would be cool to see those as extensions to Git. Surely they could just be more Git objects?

      • waldfee@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        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

        • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 day ago

          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.

    • mmmac@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Don’t be a trachers pet lol, let us enjoy a lil time off thanks to github

    • Ethan@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.