alt Hacker NewsPeople should use something that keeps a local copy of their code and just copies it to Github and to other contributors with a sync process to push and pull changes. Some sort of 'distributed source control system' maybe. Then people would only need a 'hub' to connect to people, and it'd be easier to move somewhere else.
Replies
I like how tech seems to be all about stacking more and more turtles on top of each other:
Gosh, it's hard figuring out what changes Lorne made if only we had a system to merge those changes. Enter git
Gosh it's hard figuring out what packages Rachel had to make this work. Enter rubygems/pip/npm
Gosh it's hard figuring out sync these changes across a network. Enter github
Gosh it's hard figuring out how to get those packages working on my operating system. Enter docker
Gosh centralizing our distributed version control software system onto one website is getting really unreliable. Enter fossil(?????)
If we go any further having one computer per business with a sign up sheep is starting to sound pretty fucking attractive.
What you just described is Fossil. It has an auto-sync feature that makes everything feel distributed.
Just set up a Kubernetes deployment and you’re set.
But as others mention, GitHub’s primary strength is collaboration. If you want decentralized, solve this by creating a decentralized collaboration tool on top of fossil and/or git.
For example, how to do pull requests and code reviews?
This gets tiresome. Github is a lot more than a host for Git repositories. If you want to suggest that people use something else, you need to suggest a replacement that has the features people use Github for.
> Some sort of 'distributed source control system' maybe
The day it broke away and became centralized was when we had a PR + mandatory "Required actions" to merge to main.