The single most important criteria when replacing GitHub
1–10 of 135 posts
Re: The single most important criteria when replacing GitHub
#2This reminds me Fossil SCM. The bug tracking and wiki are part of the distributed version control system.
Re: The single most important criteria when replacing GitHub
#3One would think setting up a non-profit organization (a la Wikipedia) to host a Github-like service for open source projects would be a good idea (I'd work on such a project). But without capital to expend on marketing/outreach, I'm not sure such a thing would gain much traction.
Re: The single most important criteria when replacing GitHub
#4But the wikis are in git and you can contribute to them that way if you want to.
The rest have no real business being in git. There are other interfaces for getting your data out if you really need it.
So much of this argument is just “this one format is better than X” without any tradeoffs being mentioned.
Re: The single most important criteria when replacing GitHub
#5Interesting thought exercise, but must disagree - git is VERY FAR from a database replacement (especially at scale).
Maybe some git-like interface on top of a database is more what you want...
Re: The single most important criteria when replacing GitHub
#6Criterion.
Re: The single most important criteria when replacing GitHub
#7One would think setting up a non-profit organization (a la Wikipedia) to host a Github-like service for open source projects would be a good idea (I'd work on such a project). But without capital to expend on marketing/outreach, I'm not sure such a thing would gain much traction.
I think https://notabug.org/about fits your criteria.
Re: The single most important criteria when replacing GitHub
#8This seems like a conflation. Your repo issues could be stored in a SQLite database, or a flat list of JSON files, or a git repo, or a giant text file, any of which your host might or might not give you direct access to.
The thing to consider (if portability is your primary concern) isn't the underlying storage format, it's whether or not you have a straightforward way to move it between providers.
Re: The single most important criteria when replacing GitHub
#9While I'm sympathetic to the mindset behind this post (ie, by wary of git centralization), I think that (for example) issue storage is an orthogonal issue from issue format. With a standardized issue format, it could be stored in a database or git, and as long as the service had an open export function, it would require no lock-in.
Also, as some have pointed out here, storing highly relational data like issues and connected profiles, etc, could be an exercise in frustration if you tried to store all that in git. At the very least, it would be limiting.
Re: The single most important criteria when replacing GitHub
#10Interesting thought exercise, but must disagree - git is VERY FAR from a database replacement (especially at scale). Maybe some git-like interface on top of a database is more what you want...
Single git repositories do not need to scale to a million issues or comments.
It've used git as a database very productively, at well beyond that scale. https://joeyh.name/blog/entry/databranches/