← Back to context

Comment by globular-toast

2 months ago

Right, my suspicion was correct. When I interacted with them a few years ago they seemed perfectly nice and friendly, but seem to have gone off the rails more recently. It's an uncomfortable situation and I've a feeling people are afraid to discuss this kind of thing but we really need to. People are a risk factor in software projects and we need to be resilient to changes they face. Forking is the right way, but places like GitHub have sold people on centralisation. We need to get back to decentralised dev.

6 comments

globular-toast

Reply
znpy  2 months ago

> but places like GitHub have sold people on centralisation. We need to get back to decentralised dev.

I don’t think that’s the case. It’s more of a marketing/market incentive. It’s great pr to be associated with the most famous project, way less so to be associated with a fork, at least until the fork becomes widespread and well recognised.

GitHub does make it fairly easy to fork a project, I wouldn’t blame the situation on github.

  • globular-toast  2 months ago

    Just look at how much of the drama is caused by who "owns" the repository. In a decentralised model, which git perfectly supports, everybody owns their own branch(es). But all the issues etc. are stuck on the GitHub project.

    • znpy  2 months ago

      > In a decentralised model, which git perfectly supports, everybody owns their own branch(es). But all the issues etc. are stuck on the GitHub project.

      yeah i'm gonna call BS on this. this kind of drama already existed when communities were "decentralised" and each one had its own forum, mailing list or whatever.

      the core of the issue here is about wanting to be the owner of a repository.

      so people should just not bother with being owner of a specific repository, but just fork it and move on. and github supports forking sufficiently well for this purpose.

      1 reply →