31–40 of 88 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there is a sort of thing built on top of Git where the wiki and issues are actually part of the repo itself, I forget the name, a bit like the Fossil SCM.
It's actually its own distinct version control _system_. And yes, it is Fossil SCM: https://fossil-scm.org/
This is a really cool project and I’ve been following it for awhile. I’m also keen on breaking up the code forges monopolies. I’ve been dipping my toes into this space mainly because I think code forges as they exist are trying to solve multiple problems at the same time. I think there’s value in splitting this functionality up into discrete services. For example, most forges: host your git repo, web view, collab too…
If you have a company you don’t want to pay 20 invoices to different vendors.
If you have a company you don’t want to deal with debugging integration between your CI/CD and web view and git providers, you want to make a ticket and have it fixed.
When you are developing a project you don’t want to spend time figuring out which task management will integrate with other parts.
As a developer you also don’t want to jump through 5 different tools and waste time you want integrated and streamlined experience.
Git being decentralized doesn’t have value besides the fact that I can have my local copy and work on it separately from whatever is there on the central server my company uses.
This is a really cool project and I’ve been following it for awhile. I’m also keen on breaking up the code forges monopolies. I’ve been dipping my toes into this space mainly because I think code forges as they exist are trying to solve multiple problems at the same time. I think there’s value in splitting this functionality up into discrete services. For example, most forges: host your git repo, web view, collab too…
I see you hand waved people who pay money so that forges can operate. If you have a company you don’t want to pay 20 invoices to different vendors. If you have a company you don’t want to deal with debugging integration between your CI/CD and web view and git providers, you want to make a ticket and have it fixed. When you are developing a project you don’t want to spend time figuring out which task management will i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
decentralization out of the box for the most part. Its built on ATproto protocol which is used by bluesky/created by them
Git is decentralized.
The forges aren’t decentralized though (barring bits like Sourcehut pushing for email patch workflows). Thats part of what ATP is potentially helping to solve for here.
I really like the idea of more decentralized git collaboration. What do people think are the biggest blockers to adoption in this space? Having to run a server or manage some kind of private keys? Is it purely network effect?
Spam, illegal content, and moderation in general. How do you protect against new account spam when any domain could be a PDS and any PDS could host an arbitrary number of users? What do you do about people stuffing ebooks and TV shows in git repositories? If a project is getting piled on with all its issued spammed because of political views of the repo's maintainer, is this considered a problem, and if so how is it…
I really like the idea of more decentralized git collaboration. What do people think are the biggest blockers to adoption in this space? Having to run a server or manage some kind of private keys? Is it purely network effect?
Spam, illegal content, and moderation in general. How do you protect against new account spam when any domain could be a PDS and any PDS could host an arbitrary number of users? What do you do about people stuffing ebooks and TV shows in git repositories? If a project is getting piled on with all its issued spammed because of political views of the repo's maintainer, is this considered a problem, and if so how is it…
And if you choose to receive a broader sampling, you can subscribe to someone who will curate it for you---either manually, or through algorithms. It seems like an elegant way to have a web-of-trust layer for curation, composed with an algorithmic curation layer---and be able to tune the latter separately to suit user needs, without being beholden to the interests of the platform operator. You can easily switch your subscriptions if you don't like the way someone is curating it, without wholesale losing access to the network!
> A question to ponder: is anyone here going to volunteer to run a "permissive" radicle seed node?
Doesn't opening up curation+subscription solve this problem too? Anyone can curate in opinionated ways, and offer to "host" whatever they are okay with accepting responsibility for (at whatever level of endorsement, so long as it is clearly communicated) and users have the choice to subscribe.
The problem today is that curation is tangled with access to the network, so you're forced to accept the curation provided to you by the owner of the walled garden (and incentives are misaligned)
Learned recently about their support for Jujutsu at JJ Con last week: https://blog.tangled.org/stacking
My only hesitation is that I'd want it for private use in a company, and it isn't clear to me how to avoid connecting your Tangled instance to the rest of the public network.
This is a really cool project and I’ve been following it for awhile. I’m also keen on breaking up the code forges monopolies. I’ve been dipping my toes into this space mainly because I think code forges as they exist are trying to solve multiple problems at the same time. I think there’s value in splitting this functionality up into discrete services. For example, most forges: host your git repo, web view, collab too…
Also, of course - economy of scale for the infrastructure / integrations between features. Monoliths are still a thing.
But yeah, I agree developer experience may be traded here.