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

You already have a Git server

maurycyz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 454 posts

Re: You already have a Git server

#291

Post by morshu9001 »

jrm4 wrote: post #204
morshu9001 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idk if git was designed to not be used in a centralized way. Like all other common CLIs, it was simply designed to work on your PC or server without caring who you are, and nothing stopped a corp from turning it into a product. Torvalds made git and Linux, then he put Linux on Github.

It's not a "CLI" and yes, "decentralized" was literally one of the points of it.

"Distributed" was the point and the language their site uses*, not decentralized. It's only described as a convenience and reliability thing in contrast to the mess known as CVS. I haven't seen a note about avoiding one entity having too much power, even if that's a goal some users have in mind. Normally you have one master repo, or "blessed" as the site calls it.

It's like, a Redis cluster is distributed but not decentralized. The ssh protocol is not decentralized. XMPP, Matrix, and Bitcoin are decentralized protocols, first two via federation.

* https://git-scm.com/about/distributed

Re: You already have a Git server

#292

Post by chipsrafferty »

jasode wrote: post #224
paulddraper wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having a web interface was really appreciated by users, it would seem.

>Having a web interface It's not the interface , it's the web hosting . People want a free destination server that's up 24/7 to store their repository. If it was only the web interface, people could locally install GitLab or Gitea to get a web browser UI. (Or use whatever modern IDE code editor to have a GUI instead of a CLI for git commands.) But doing that still doesn't solve what GitHub solves: a public server to…

No, actually it's the interface. Many companies would totally host it themselves, but the interface is what gives GH value.

Re: You already have a Git server

#293

Post by chipsrafferty »

JamesLeonis wrote: post #165
Sharlin wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Git was always explicitly a decentralized, "peer to peer" version control system, as opposed to centralized ones like SVN, with nothing in the protocol itself that makes a distinction between a "server" and a "client". Using it in a centralized fashion is just a workflow that you choose to use (or, realistically, one that somebody else chose for you). Any clone of a repository can be a remote to any other clone, and…

I have a use case just for this. Sometimes my internet goes down while I'm working on my desktop computer. I'll put my work in a branch and push it to my laptop, then go to a coffee shop to continue my work.

I just copy files on a USB drive

Re: You already have a Git server

#294

Post by morshu9001 »

semanticc wrote: post #287
morshu9001 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idk if git was designed to not be used in a centralized way. Like all other common CLIs, it was simply designed to work on your PC or server without caring who you are, and nothing stopped a corp from turning it into a product. Torvalds made git and Linux, then he put Linux on Github.

Linux is not developed in GitHub.

I know it's only a mirror, but it looks like an approval

Re: You already have a Git server

#295

Post by xeonmc »

icy wrote: post #48
rustman123 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this support private repositories with collaboration?

Not yet, unfortunately. Mostly due to protocol limitations—we use AT ( https://atproto.com ) for federation.

can tangled support a forum-styled or subreddit-like thread discussion interface, on a per-repo basis so that "anyone could start a subreddit" via creating a discussion-only repo?

Re: You already have a Git server

#296

Post by jdingel »

cozzyd wrote: post #246
Certhas wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In another post discussion, someone suggested git as an alternative to overleaf, a Google Docs for latex... I guess there are plenty of people with blind spots for things that are technically possible, and usabel to experts, and UI that actually empowers much broader classes of users to wield the feature.

Is the joke that overleaf has decent git integration?

Overleaf doesn't support branches, etc.

Re: You already have a Git server

#297

Post by FpUser »

udev4096 wrote: post #229
jasode wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Having a web interface It's not the interface , it's the web hosting . People want a free destination server that's up 24/7 to store their repository. If it was only the web interface, people could locally install GitLab or Gitea to get a web browser UI. (Or use whatever modern IDE code editor to have a GUI instead of a CLI for git commands.) But doing that still doesn't solve what GitHub solves: a public server to…

GH is essentially an unlimited storage space. There are countless scripts which makes it possible to even use it as an unlimited mounted storage

And then one day orange gets pissed of at yet another country and it (the repo) is gone

Re: You already have a Git server

#298

Post by webstrand »

jonhohle wrote: post #137
webstrand wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a little more complex than that. Yes git can work in a peer-to-peer fashion, but the porcelain is definitely set up for a hub-and-spoke model, given how cloning a remote repo only gives you a partial copy of the remote history. There's other stuff too, like git submodules can't be configured to reference another branch on the local repository and then be cloned correctly, only another remote.

> given how cloning a remote repo only gives you a partial copy of the remote history When you clone you get the full remote history and all remote branches (by default). That’s painfully true when you have a repo with large binary blobs (and the reason git-lfs and others exist).

You're right, I got that part wrong, git actually fetches all of the remote commits (but not all of the refs, many things are missing, for instance notes).

But a clone of your clone is not going to work the same way, since remote branches are not cloned by default, either. So it'll only have partial history. This is what I was thinking about.

Post reply on HN