(Replying to PARENT post)
There is no longer an "if". It's absolutely true that GitHub is cruising at this time. For example: They are more interested in hiring community managers / community "heroes" instead of actual engineers in SF.
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
There you go: https://github.com/google/git-appraise
(Replying to PARENT post)
http://lists.suckless.org/dev/1201/index.html#msg10574
Last one proposed by someone: http://lists.suckless.org/dev/1504/26210.html
(Replying to PARENT post)
Distributed is the key word. Blockchain/Bitcoin (not withstanding the hurtful politics ongoing at present) has shown the way, and ideally most shared/social things should work in a distributed, trust-less environment in future. Including Social networks and Search Engines.
So it is quite natural, that OSS developers can pave the way for shared/distributed source control (a protocol on top of GIT. Just like HTTP is over TCP).
Just to clarify, I don't hate github. But it sort of obscures the beauty/advancement that is GIT, over previous version control softwares. Wonder what does the creator Linus think of this?
(Replying to PARENT post)
Why distributed? You need a central place to report bugs and track them to ensure they’re not duplicated everywhere.
(Replying to PARENT post)
There’s not necessarily an antagonism between distributed and centralised in this case. You can still have a centralised frontend such as Github Issues, backed by a versioned and distributed backend using i.e. git.
(Replying to PARENT post)
If GitHub is kicking back and sitting on their huge valuations, then it's time to pick up this work again. If issue tracking and code reviews were based on a common, distributed system like git itself, then all these companies could compete evenly for features and UX on top of such a system, without ever having the advantage of "locking in" its users with extremely high migration costs.