Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GitHub down

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 198 posts

Re: GitHub down

#121

Post by Klathmon »

zeveb wrote: post #98
dom96 wrote: post #33

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.

If you think about it, there's no particular reasons why the metadata can't live in (and be tracked by ) the repo itself. 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 (o…

PRs and other things could also just live in a "shadow repo". Even if just by convention.

You have a `Product` repo and a `Product-meta` repo.

The biggest issue I have with using git as a truly decentralized system is remote management. Unless you want to be manually futzing with remotes on every single client and pushing/fetching from others correctly, you need some kind of central server.

I really think there is a hole here for a product that works with git underneath, but gives a nice easy way to manage all that complexity.

Re: GitHub down

#122

Post by musicmatze »

dom96 wrote: post #33
TAForObvReasons wrote: post #24

Earlier 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.

https://github.com/neithernut/git-dit provides a distributed issue tracker inside git, without cluttering the repository with unneeded files and also gives the possibility for having tree-like conversation, referencing issues and so on.

Unfortunately, no non-cli frontend exists right now (feel free to build one, shouldn't be complicated). Also some convenience is still missing, but could easily be integrated.

What's also missing is a way to give users of the tool access to a repository where they can submit issues (which then could also be used by a web/gui frontend for the tool). This is not the domain of git-dit itself, but a solution needs to be found. One idea would be a publish repo (where everyone can push) which automatically does some sanity-verification on the issues and forwards them to the maintainers repository... or something like that.

Also, https://github.com/vitiral/artifact/ is a really nice tool to do planning of an application or library inside a git repository. I am currently starting using it in iamg (https://imag-pim.org) and it is really wonderful. The author currently does a reimplementation of its core functionality to make it even more powerful.

Re: GitHub down

#123

Post by zbentley »

romanovcode wrote: post #105

Again, the GitHub is down for 5 minutes and everyone rushes the "who will post first on HN" thing. I don't get it.

Fake Internet Points at stake + a lot of engineers sitting around with nothing to do = spam HN.

Re: GitHub down

#124

Post by JohnStudio »

ezekg wrote: post #103
drdaeman wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. We need a proper whitepaper explaining how to make GitHub decentralized with blockchain tokenization using distributed smart-contracts. ;) (Did I forget any important buzzword?)

Blockchain is so 2017--block lattice is the future.

Actually that's the FIRST time I've ever heard of lattice. Is that a real deal? Not trying to feed into the hype here, but from a math perspective I get fascinated by concurrency

Re: GitHub down

#126

Post by sdruskat »

d4nyll wrote: post #68
sdruskat wrote: post #26

If all goes belly up there is always Software Heritage ( https://www.softwareheritage.org/ ).

Is this like https://web.archive.org/ for software?

Aims to be, yes. Early stages still, but it's well-supported by a number of institutions, funders, governments even.

Re: GitHub down

#127

Post by ReverseCold »

nezza-_- wrote: post #2

We centralized a decentralized version control system.

We centralized a decentralized communication system too. (eMail)

Decentralization just doesn't work too well in practice for whatever reason. Everyone is behind a NAT/firewall, everyone has low computing power, its hard to regulate, etc. This all leads to a centralized solution being easier.

I think the current best thing we have is centralized but open source and encrypted, which gets an "okay"/10 from me.

Re: GitHub down

#128

Post by JohnStudio »

CabSauce wrote: post #96
drdaeman wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. We need a proper whitepaper explaining how to make GitHub decentralized with blockchain tokenization using distributed smart-contracts. ;) (Did I forget any important buzzword?)

It's missing a sprinkle of AI.

deep-learning. AI is so 2002 (noting I, Cyborg by Kevin Warwick)

Re: GitHub down

#129

Post by mcguire »

zbentley wrote: post #85
drdaeman wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. We need a proper whitepaper explaining how to make GitHub decentralized with blockchain tokenization using distributed smart-contracts. ;) (Did I forget any important buzzword?)

Did I forget any important buzzword? Nah, but you could always add some Serverless and Lambada to make it more Agile.

"Did I forget any important buzzword?"

BigDataDeepLearning.

Re: GitHub down

#130

Post by Klathmon »

bunderbunder wrote: post #82

Back when hurricane Sandy took out my employer's upstream Mercurial server for several days straight, I was pretty chuffed to be able to tell my boss, "You know how we migrated to a new source control system a couple months ago? Well, thanks to that, we can keep working pretty much uninterrupted. We should double check that XXX is getting frequent offsite backups, though." My current company uses a self-hosted option…

While I don't necessarily agree with it, the argument is that with a self hosted solution, you have more control over when you are doing things.

So if you have a really busy time coming up, you don't deploy the new git update that day, you wait until you would be okay with some downtime.

Post reply on HN