not sure if my instincts are off so lmk how you all feel about this: "in a hypothetical federated git platform, i would like it if conversations in a repository (eg issues and pull requests) were stored directly in the repository as opposed to in a database on the server"

boosts appreciated


@nasser whenever i use github i always wish the discussion were in *a* repository but i feel like having it in the same one could get messy? (i.e. switching between discussion and in progress code might be more of a pain). that's kind of just a UI sort of thing so i guess it could be in the same repository either way

· · Web · 1 · 0 · 9

@eq that's really good feedback. yeah my current prototype stores them in the same repo but on their own orphaned branch, one branch per conversation. UI is undetermined, but i was imagining you wouldnt really interact with the conversation branches directly (though you certainly could) but is instead would use (cli/editor/web) tools to do it for you? like i said, totally undetermined.

@nasser just doing it via git logs was one silly idea i had running through my head when writing the first post. i think i tried something similar for some project a while back

@eq yeah it *basically* just works because git is a remarkable piece of software. this was me messing around a few days ago. the messages are stored in the commit messages, and attachments work by storing files in the object store.

@nasser oh i didn't think about that being useful for attachments but it makes a ton of sense! that's clever

@nasser @eq orphaned branch was going to be my suggestion, yeah! feels like a good fit.

@nasser @eq there's a bit of a chicken/egg problem if you use discussion to talk about merging branches but the discussion itself is a branch. metacircularity is a fun problem to have tho.

@nasser @eq

You can store things outside of branches too! I don't use it (and don't know anyone who does) but there is things like git-notes:

@nasser @eq Just curious.. how do you derive the orphaned branch name?

@abrahms @eq I was thinking new conversation branches could get temporary names and then after the first commit be renamed to the hash of that commit, because you really want to refer to a conversations by some kind of unique hash and at the first commit works as well as anything. current prototype doesn't do anything like that yet.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

cybrespace: the social hub of the information superhighway jack in to the mastodon fediverse today and surf the dataflow through our cybrepunk, slightly glitchy web portal support us on patreon or liberapay!