Gooyz, Windows?
Radicle: A peer-to-peer alternative to GitHub
181–190 of 263 posts
Re: Radicle: A peer-to-peer alternative to GitHub
#182We kind of need this yesterday... what's the point of having a decentralized git if the issues are centralized at Github? (which, not to make too fine a point of it, is owned by Microsoft). Even if you host your own Gitlab, there is always that day when the hard drive of the server fails and the ops have to spend a weekend restoring backups while changing hosting company because who crashes the hard-drive of an expen…
I always find it comically ironic how the industry basically centralized a version management system (git) that was inherently designed to be decentralized. "Git is so great! Let's add these higher level project management features but let's do it in a centralized model!"
I think the centralization comes from convenience. Building a good, decentralized UX is a lot harder than making a centralized one (evidence: almost every attempt at P2P networks.)
Re: Radicle: A peer-to-peer alternative to GitHub
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you for sharing your work and great to see more attempts on the same problem. I am one of the maintainers of the Radicle project. The main problem we encountered with similar systems that rely on blockchains / dht for storage is the problem of 'blockchain poisoning'. This is when someone deliberately adds illegal content to an append-only source in hopes to make the sole act of replicating the project legally p…
Considering the illegal content is added by someone who has access to the repository. The right way to address that would be via community voting, which then can decide to hide it from the platform since the data is permanent on Arweave. This governance workflow will enable the community to make such content policies.
I just want to publish some code.
Now I need to worry about blockchains and tokens and voting?
Re: Radicle: A peer-to-peer alternative to GitHub
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I see the point of building a complex platform with governance and whatnot. What I want is an easy way to publish my projects and for other people to contribute, I need something more like email (independent, self-hosted servers with a well defined protocol to communicate between them) than Facebook. I don't care about the governance of my git remote, or getting money out of it. I care about it being rel…
You might be interested in https://github.com/MichaelMure/git-bug . It stores issues directly in the git repository so the whole issue tracker is as distributed as the rest of your code. I can't speak to the UX though.
This seems pretty cool, is there a demo of the Web UI?
Re: Radicle: A peer-to-peer alternative to GitHub
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
If repos are public, then you must assume that once something is pushed then someone has copied it. You may get lucky and remove/hide it fast enough, or think you did... This is an with Github today, all public repos are being watched by bots reviewing all commits for accidentally-pushed credentials. The only solution is to not use a public repo.
You’re not answering the question. Is it possible to delete or not? On GitHub yes someone might be watching, but deletes are still possible.
I don't know. You can always clean the Git history & force-push it, but the developers would have to explain if there's any backups or archive kept anywhere...
Re: Radicle: A peer-to-peer alternative to GitHub
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
this is naïve. the problems being addressed do exist, independent of whether this particular solution will work. that’s great that the status quo is working for you, but it’s silly to then assert that progress cannot be made.
Well maybe our "naive" approach might be worth investigating. Because we put so little time into ridiculous missions like "distributed issues because git is also distributed", we are able to focus more on the product, customers, and processes. You know, things that actually drive business value and pay out everyones' bonus checks at the end of the year. We have actually considered doing a complete in-house implementa…
i’m saying it’s ok to be pragmatic and fully accept that you are Microsoft’s target demographic. they’re solving the annoying bits so you can focus on what’s important to you.
but, that’s not the end of the story. there may likely be gains found with new innovations.
companies like github are not incentivized to revolutionize “what works”. they’re incentivized to get you to rely increasingly on their services. and as long as that works for you, great!
i’m just saying, don’t discount efforts made to make github obsolete.
Re: Radicle: A peer-to-peer alternative to GitHub
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re not answering the question. Is it possible to delete or not? On GitHub yes someone might be watching, but deletes are still possible.
I don't know. You can always clean the Git history & force-push it, but the developers would have to explain if there's any backups or archive kept anywhere...
Since data is stored permanently on Arweave, there's no way to remove it from the blockchain. However, you could force push your repo which would remove your concerned commit from Gitopia repository view.
Re: Radicle: A peer-to-peer alternative to GitHub
#188What a nice funky design. That front page has a soul, unlike almost everything else I see nowadays.
I like the GITS gif, but the page in general feels like a fever dream to me.
Re: Radicle: A peer-to-peer alternative to GitHub
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
I argue that centralization of certain processes is the entire point. How the hell are you going to manage a complex software project if everyone has a different version of the issues pertaining to it? Simply seeing an issue comment instantly update in GitHub as I am scrolling through has saved me tons of aggregate hours in wasted time on changing requirements.
First, I'm not arguing :-), just sharing. If I'm using fossil, I just do. Fossil is built by the people behind sqlite, and issues, wikis, etc... all of the pm stuff is baked in. Tickets that are referenced in check-ins are synced. This improves on github: if another dev has worked on a ticket and their branch hasn't merged yet, the ticket update is visible. Fossil also allows for heirarchal management structures, and…
i think fossil has the better architecture and it would probably take off if the baked in webapp were as polished as github. somebody should fork fossil and make a github clone.
Re: Radicle: A peer-to-peer alternative to GitHub
#190I'm impressed and I see potential on this one. I tried different ones over time but most fail at on-boarding. This was seamless and really easy. In about 2 minutes I successfully shared my project and followed known projects. This means this mvp works and it let me craving for more, I want to use this! I want issues and PR support to prove this can effectively work as a github replacement to me. Now, the downside of…
hm, that is interesting, the fact that projects are public and advertised by default was not clear to me while going through the onboarding.