> No reason this stuff cannot be modeled using existing Git objects. That's the easy part. The hard part is discovery and keeping stuff like teams and moderation when you decentralize it. Advancements in Blockchain-tech, IPFS and similar will make this viable soonish-ly, but I think we are not quite there yet from a technological standpoint.
How is blockchain related to this?
AFAICT, blockchain is the new hammer that is the solution to all of the world's problems.
Blockchains allow for a distributed, mutable permissioned system that are required(?) for features like "Who is allowed to push to this named repository?". You can also leave stuff like that out, but then you will end up with a system where everyone can only push to their own forks leaving us with a very splintered distributed system. To compensate we would need a much better system for distributed content discovery…
" Our engineering team has identified the root cause of the issue and a fix has been applied. We are currently verifying that the incident is fully resolved. Oct 16, 13:48 UTC"
Your user page shows you how much karma you need to hit the next level. In your case, you need 172 to downvote comments. https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=exikyut
I had no idea! Thanks for the pointer. There are more levels?
I don't know. Maybe at 1,000,000,000 you become CEO of ycombinator.
Blockchains allow for a distributed, mutable permissioned system that are required(?) for features like "Who is allowed to push to this named repository?". You can also leave stuff like that out, but then you will end up with a system where everyone can only push to their own forks leaving us with a very splintered distributed system. To compensate we would need a much better system for distributed content discovery…
You don't need a Blockchain for that. You just store the public keys of the allowed users on the repository itself. Giving readable names to repositories is a possible use case, although I'd just use DNS.
Yeah, I guess you are right, a blockchain is probably not an absolute requirement for that. I think though, that decentralized maintenance of open source project would be a logical next step, and a blockchain-based system could certainly be useful there. This could help prevent a lot of stale/abandoned projects from dying where the only maintainers of a project leave it to rot and there is no one left to review PRs coming from the community.
You don't need a Blockchain for that. You just store the public keys of the allowed users on the repository itself. Giving readable names to repositories is a possible use case, although I'd just use DNS.
Yeah, I guess you are right, a blockchain is probably not an absolute requirement for that. I think though, that decentralized maintenance of open source project would be a logical next step, and a blockchain-based system could certainly be useful there. This could help prevent a lot of stale/abandoned projects from dying where the only maintainers of a project leave it to rot and there is no one left to review PRs c…
Didn't you get the memo? If you stamp enough buzzwords on everything, it magically works, regardless of their relevance to the application.
I see you got the memo that being dismissive of everything that contains buzzwords is still popular ;)
Both IPFS and blockchain are definitely applicable to decentralizing applications. E.g. DSound[0], a distributed version of Soundcloud is built with IPFS + a blockchain(not necessarily a fan of STEEM though). There could just as well be something analogous for Github, Bitbucket, etc..
I've said it before and I'll say it again... It makes zero sense to centralize something that was meant to be decentralized. We need issues, pull requests, comments, milestones, wiki, etc... all to be decentralized. No reason this stuff cannot be modeled using existing Git objects. GitHub, GitLab and BitBucket are extremely similar. Almost 100% overlap, you could use the lowest common denominator between the 3 and yo…
You could always use all three. That way, if one goes down, there are still two others ready to take its place.
> We need issues, pull requests, comments, milestones, wiki, etc... all to be decentralized. No reason this stuff cannot be modeled using existing Git objects. https://www.fossil-scm.org/ pretty much does this.
That is pretty interesting and does model those things in the same data store. But the data store isn't git objects, as far as I can tell... "Fossil stores its objects in a relational (SQLite) database file"
Yeah, it fully replaces the whole version control tool.