Why not Just™ store all PR/Issues content as markdown on a separate branch along side the code itself? Why do we need a new protocol?
We need a federation of forges
91–100 of 424 posts
Re: We need a federation of forges
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tangled is built entirely in the open: https://tangled.org/tangled.org/core , and our primary goal is to be "permanent software"—i.e. be fully reproducible and entirely self-hostable at minimal cost. VC money is a means to an end. We're both Indian founders in Europe, and grants are nigh on impossible to find (4–12+ months for anything to materialize). VC is quite simply the quickest way for us to build a team, setup…
VC money is absolutely not a means to an end, what is signals is that the company doesn't care about community and only cares about profit. I'm with the OP you're replying to. Taking VC is an albatross that means a large portion of devs will never trust you or use your services (outside of bleeding your funds dry). If this place truly cared about community they should have made a non-profit or some type of NGO, basic…
> the company doesn't care about community and only cares about profit.
There are plenty of examples of VC funded companies that care about community & don't "only care about profit". Bluesky is a good one (literally a community / social platform). That's such a black & white take it baffles me.
> Taking VC is an albatross that means a large portion of devs will never trust you or use your services
A "large portion of devs" (the majority) use so many VC funded services? Probably _most_ services devs use are VC funded. GitHub itself - was VC funded.
You can have an anti-VC opinion but you have to also live in reality.
Re: We need a federation of forges
#93GitHub is a huge and almost 20 year old company suddenly experiencing massive scale growth as a result of an externality it didn't cause and that no one predicted. That is an incredibly difficult scenario for any long-running, established organization to handle.
Yes, GitHub is temporarily breaking under the increased load, yes, it's likely to still be a thing in 2 months, and no, it's unlikely to still be a thing in 12 months.
It's very unlikely a cool new thing will peel enough developers off GitHub in the next six months to survive long term as GitHub inevitably gets its ability to handle the new normal scale back.
Re: We need a federation of forges
#94Tangled is VC sponsored. It doesn't scream stability to me, but rather "we need to grow at all cost". I don't see the appeal. Even though it's federated, when development stops, who will be there to fix bugs and maintain it?
You wrote this comment on a VC funded news aggregation website, so who's to say?
Re: We need a federation of forges
#95tangled is a really cool project; the most important feature it provides is that it is jujutsu first.
I don't really see it.
I used JJ for a bit, but I personally really, really dislike the anonymous branch approach it forces you into.
Branches are just useful conceptually, at least to me. For the same reason I like my documents grouped into folders.
Frankly - I think JJ just ended up taking up far more mental bandwidth than git. Simple operations need generated ids, commands require complicated input (ex - the entire revset thing), I have to be constantly thinking about the tool and its structure.
It feels really oversold to me. It's solving problems for people who live in source control, not problems for people who just want snapshots of code every now and then. Hell - just look at some of the example commands from the suggested tutorial:
jj new ym z r yx m -m "merge: steve's branch"
jj log -r 'ancestors(trunk, 2)'
jj new o
jj log -r '@ | ancestors(remote_bookmarks().., 2) | trunk()'
---
With all due respect, if the intro tutorial to your tool includes a command having to literally write function names in quoted commands, or run a command with fucking 8 (EIGHT!) arguments... You've jumped the shark.
Not trying to harsh anyone's buzz - if you like it... great, it's clearly quite powerful. But it misses the mark for me. I want "just powerful enough" with minimal mental overhead.
Re: We need a federation of forges
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to have missed the fact that Bluesky is funded by the same crypto VC. Look how well that has turned out even though Bluesky is open source. Tangled is not funded by the community. It would be better if it was rather than it be owned by VCs.
> Look how well that has turned out even though Bluesky is open source. ??? Bluesky can make decisions, mistakes, or moderation choices you disagree with and you can just go to https://blacksky.community , a completely independent AppView with different moderation that was up for the entirety of a 24hr outage Bluesky recently had. I'd say AT Protocol is turning out pretty well.
> ??? Bluesky can make decisions, mistakes, or moderation choices you disagree with
Bluesky PBC still has major influence of the AT Protocol.
> and you can just go to https://blacksky.community, a completely independent AppView
Swapping one broken chair for another broken chair won’t cut it.
Development and steering is subsidised by VCs funding Bluesky at this point. (especially a crypto VC)
Have you ever asked whats in it for them?
What plans are they going to put into the protocol?
I can see the AT Protocol shoving crypto payments or whatever in their insatiable quest for growth and ROI, because when the funding money runs out when BS miss their growth targets, this is what happens.
And for Tangled’s monetisation path, it is questionable.
So no.
Not a solution.
Re: We need a federation of forges
#97Forge federation seems like a bad idea to me. If you want to go the route of decentralized project management (note that git as a VCS tool is already decentralized for this purpose), you're probably much better off modernizing the git-over-email workflow instead.
Decentralizing the code isn't an issue; cloning repo's between servers is so standard that any forge can import a code repo from any other forge.
The difficulty is ancillary stuff like issue trackers, wikis and MRs, but using a federated protocol for that seems ill-advised given the much weaker safeguards against spam. Mailing lists have a very large existing body of work on the matter of dealing with spam and a proven method of mirroring/archival. (Most git wikis are just git repositories with a different renderer.)
The main reason nobody likes doing git-over-email is mostly just because it's very user-unfriendly to set up (since modern mail clients typically aren't correctly configured to deal with them). It's a very developer oriented workflow in the worst way possible. A modernized mailing list program that automatically takes care of things like reformatting emails/not leaking email addresses to the general public would go a long way to make it easier to deal with.
Re: We need a federation of forges
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tangled is built entirely in the open: https://tangled.org/tangled.org/core , and our primary goal is to be "permanent software"—i.e. be fully reproducible and entirely self-hostable at minimal cost. VC money is a means to an end. We're both Indian founders in Europe, and grants are nigh on impossible to find (4–12+ months for anything to materialize). VC is quite simply the quickest way for us to build a team, setup…
VC money is absolutely not a means to an end, what is signals is that the company doesn't care about community and only cares about profit. I'm with the OP you're replying to. Taking VC is an albatross that means a large portion of devs will never trust you or use your services (outside of bleeding your funds dry). If this place truly cared about community they should have made a non-profit or some type of NGO, basic…
[deleted]
Re: We need a federation of forges
#99In what sense do we need Tangled if there's already ForgeFed?
Except there isn't already ForgeFed.
Re: We need a federation of forges
#100[dead]