151–160 of 198 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Personally, I prefer something more lightweight and for some time I've been using gogs - https://github.com/gogits/gogs (so far so good)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
It is only a matter of time before someone here suggests you use self hosted gitlab/github enterprise. Ain't got time for that.
Time allocated for this used to be a given. It's interesting how quickly we have moved to SaaS. Though if your internal IT team had a VCS outage, it wouldn't be Hacker News news. Really it is just the scope of the outages (and commiseration) that has changed.
b) Outages are inevitable and if you're using a SaaS you get to blame someone else for it (and sometimes it gets resolved quicker)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you actually notice that BitBucket was down yesterday for several hours and still has huge issues?
I think GP was referring to the fact that bitbucket.org-the-website is just the Atlassian-hosted installation of BitBucket-the-Atlassian-product, which you can also self-host and self-administrate. It is payware, but reasonably affordable ($10/10 users, usually). I've seen companies squeeze some (probably contract-breaching) huge numbers of users out of the very small plans of Atlassian software, as well, usually via…
Nope. They're completely separate things.
The hosted one they bought, and does mercurial too.
The self hosted one is what used to be called stash, and is git only afaik.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you just did.
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?)
This is why it pays to host your own source repositories. It is kind of shocking that many people with the skills and means are too cheap to host their own. I personally could not risk github deleting my repositories or (in this case) going down for any length of time.
Even if your own solution had better uptime, you still haven't shown that it's worth it. GitHub is far more than just a git repo on a server.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Like GitHub?
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.
