• Ephera@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Git itself is already capable of distributed usage, which is better than federated/decentralized.
      ‘Distributed’ and ‘decentralized’ in this sense:

      But in terms of the Git hosting service, with an issue board and all that, which is often called a “git forge”, you’ve got Forgejo working on an implementation, as well as ForgeFed as a general protocol (also work-in-progress).

      • winterayars@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        8 hours ago

        It’s funny how git was carefully designed to be decentralized and resistant to failure from any single node… and we immediately put all our fault tolerance on the back of one corporate-owned entity. Welp.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          It’s because they solved all the version control problems, but not accessibility and discoverability. I’m probably not going to try and use git peer-to-peer with a total stranger.

    • mesamune@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      git yes.

      GitHub like services, no. Codeberg/forgejo looks promising, but theres a lot of discussion on what it should “look” like. Seems like its a pretty big challenge to do correctly.

    • flashgnash@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Wouldn’t help if your chosen instance is down, same problem unless multiple other people are storing your code on their servers

      Otherwise it kinda already is federated, you can have multiple remotes configured for a repo and push to both at once I’m pretty sure, then if one goes down you just use the other and sync later

    • Orygin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      16 hours ago

      I mean, it’s decentralized alright, but it doesn’t mean it’s HA or automatically replicated. You can just use a different origin server and push/pull from it instead.

      • wewbull@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 hours ago

        My comment is more about how we have this decentralised tool, but we’re unable to get our collective heads out of the centralised model. We e ended up turning it back into centralised VCS.

        • Orygin@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          I get what you mean. GitHub and friends have pushed that back to a more centralized approach. However I think that it’s not too bad actually. Most projects tend to be centralized too

      • ugo@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        15 hours ago

        I’ve pulled and pushed to a common branch that only existed on the machines of a colleague and mine to avoid running automatic pipelines due to us pushing to the gitlab remote, since we were doing some experimentation. I’ve also pulled and pushed from a separate repo on my own machine.

        Git is fantastic, because these use cases are not edge cases but standard