Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is indeed the crux of the problem. I've been thinking about this a lot (and I wouldn't be surprised if it exists already), we need a decentralised method of storing issues and other things inside our git repos.
I know of at least one solution: https://bifax.org/
GitHub down
91–100 of 198 posts
Re: GitHub down
#92"How will the world's hackers react when their source code goes offline? GitHub Down, watch it now!"
Re: GitHub down
#93Just recently I thought to myself "it has been a long time since I saw the Github Unicorn". As it turns out, I didn't really miss it at all. Regarding the centralized nature of Github: it is the centralized communication that is a problem, not the ability to share code. I can easily send a patch to somebody on my team, but that doesn't help me review a PR, reply to comments, trigger a CI build, or initiate a deploy.…
Re: GitHub down
#94Re: GitHub down
#95Re: GitHub down
#96Re: GitHub down
#97this PSA is quite unnecessary when a problem is universally known and maximally severe.
Re: GitHub down
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
Issues and other GH infrastructure is arguably a bigger problem. That metadata is locked within the Github silo with no easy way to export it elsewhere.
This is indeed the crux of the problem. I've been thinking about this a lot (and I wouldn't be surprised if it exists already), we need a decentralised method of storing issues and other things inside our git repos.
Issues could live in /issues. Simple command-line (or GUI) tools could edit them. I'm thinking in particular of how password-store[0] makes tracking history in a git repo invisible: it Just Works™.
Discussions could live in /discussions, stored in something like RFC822 format. Again, simple CLI (or GUI, if you swing that way) tools could manipulate this easily.
A wiki can, again, live in the same repo.
PRs are a little different, since they really do need to live outside the repo. But what is a PR other than someone saying, 'hey, please pull my branch into yours'?
Re: GitHub down
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you’re saying that if I put up my own Git server (for a fee), it’s likely to have better uptime statistics than GitHub? I can’t push changes to the decentralized Git protocol, only to a (centralized) server instance.
Setting up your own instance of a bit server is free. If you want issues, CI etc... Then you need a local version of github which you will pay for.
Re: GitHub down
#100While I kind of hate Atlassian products (bloated, horrible APIs), and Bitbucket has some serious UX problems (Find), it's still better than have your repos be offline. There's not much that can go wrong on a single instance with a local database. Have a failover in case the HW fails and you are good to go, and it's faster. The pricing is not great, but perhaps that's something GitLab can solve. But being hip and bein…